ACIT, Coimbatore V. Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd., Coimbatore

ITA 2137/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9064 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 29-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PATHLAVATH PEERYA
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Keywords: Business income; Permanent establishment; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 14A; 115JB; 37

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO. 2137/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :20 1 0 - 11 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE I, 63A, RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBATORE. VS. M/S. BANNARI AMMAN SUGARS LTD., 1212, TRICHY ROAD, COIM BATORE 641 018. [PAN: AA A C B8933G ] ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI PATHLAVATH PEERYA, CIT / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE / DATE OF HEARING : 29 . 0 3 .201 6 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 27 . 0 6 .201 6 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : TH I S APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 1 , C OIMBATORE , DATED 2 8 . 05 .20 15 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 11 . 2. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN FILED LATE BY FOUR DAYS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FILED AFFIDAVIT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. BY PLEADING THE REASONS STATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT, THE LD. DR HAS REQUESTED FOR CONDONING THE DELAY AND TO ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR I.T.A. NO . 2137 /M/ 14 2 THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SERIOUSLY OBJECT TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF SEVEN DAYS IN FILING THE APPE AL AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 3 . THE FIRST GROUND RAISED FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO NOT INCLUDE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ ACT IN SHORT] FOR THE PURPOSE OF COM PUTATION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT WHILE CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT UNDER NORMAL COMPUTATION OF INCOME. 3 .1 WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRIRAM CAPITAL LIMITED V. DCIT IN I.T.A. NOS.512 & 513/MDS/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 VIDE ORDER DATED 26.06.2015, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED AND HELD AS UNDER: 22. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THIS ISSUE O F DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS BY INVOKING PROVISION U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D, WAS ALREADY ADJUDICATED BY US IN OUR EARLIER PARA OF THIS ORDER. IN OUR OPINION, DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D CANNOT BE ADDED WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB OF THE ACT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE IS ONLY DISALLOWANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE NORMAL COURSE. THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT TO ADD THESE KIND OF DISALLOWANCE WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB AND IT CANNOT CHANGE THE BOOK PROFIT ON THIS COUNT. THEREFORE EVEN IF THERE IS AN ADDITION IN VIEW OF PROVISION U/S.14A R.W.RULE 8D, THAT CANNOT BE ADDED BACK TO COMPUTE THE BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. I.T.A. NO . 2137 /M/ 14 3 3 .2 IN VI EW OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN GIVING THE FINDINGS NOT TO INCLUDE THE DISALLOWANCE OF 14A FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT, THOUGH HE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER NORMAL COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THUS, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 4 . THE NEXT GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)( I) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE COMMISSION ON EXPORT SALES FOR NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX. 4 .1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF .9,53,266/ - , WHICH IS SAID TO BE PAID TOWARDS SALES COMMISSION MADE TO NON - RESIDENT UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THE SALES COMMISSION WA S PAID TO GAMBRIDGE GRANITE, USA FOR THE PURPOSE OF EFFECTIVE SALES AT ABROAD AND NOT LIABLE FOR TDS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE COMMISSION AGENTS ARE DOING MANAGERIAL CON SULTANCY SERVICES ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND IT IS NOT ONLY THE SALES COMMISSION. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE PAYMENT IS HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9(1)(VII) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENT WITHOUT DEDUCTING TDS, HE INVO KED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT AND DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO . 2137 /M/ 14 4 4 .2 HOWEVER, ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN RELIEF BY OBSERVING THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT IT IS A FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICE AND IT IS ONLY ON PRESU MPTION BASIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT IT IS PAYMENT FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. ACCORDINGLY, BE PLACED VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND HON BLE HIGH COURTS AND HELD THAT IT IS A PAYMENT FOR SALES COMMISSION. AGAINST THIS, THE REVENUE IS IN AP PEAL BEFORE US. 4.3 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. SIMILAR ISSUE CAME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. EURO LEDER FASHIONS LTD. 156 ITD 208, WHER EIN, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER: SECTION 40(A)( L) MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE DISALLOWANCE SHALL BE MADE IN CASE OR ANY PAYMENT MADE WHICH IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THIS ACT AND IS PAYABLE OUTSIDE INDIA OR IN INDIA TO A NON - RESIDENT NOT BEING A COMPANY OR TO A FOREIGN COMPANY ON WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE. THEREFORE, THE FIRST CONDITION REQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED IS THE PAYMENT MUST BE CHARGEABLE UNDER THE ACT, THEREAFTER THE QUESTION OF DEDUCTION OF TAX WILL ARISE. SECTION 195(1) ALSO PRESCRIBES THAT TA X HAS TO BE DEDUCTED WHILE MAKING PAYMENT TO NON - RESIDENT WHICH IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OR THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX IS THAT INCOME MUST BE CHARGEABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN THE FACTS OF THE PR ESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH FOREIGN AGENTS TO SHOW THAT THEY WERE APPOINTED TO ACT AS COMMISSION AGENTS OUTSIDE INDIA IN THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES. [PARA 7] AS SEEN FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE BURDEN CAST UPON IT TO SHOW THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY NON - RESIDENT AGENT. IF THERE ARE SERVICES I.T.A. NO . 2137 /M/ 14 5 RENDERED BY NON - RESIDENTS, WHO HAVE NO PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN INDIA OR HAVE ANY BUSINESS CONNEC TION IN INDIA, BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION ACCRUED OR AROSE IN INDIA THEN, IT IS EXEMPTED, IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY THOSE NON - RESIDENTS ABROAD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ESTABLIS HED THAT THE NON - RESIDENT HAD RENDERED SERVICES ABROAD AND THERE WAS NO BUSINESS CONNECTION IN INDIA BY PRODUCING RELEVANT RECORDS, VIZ; EITHER AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THEM OR CORRESPONDENCE TOOK BETWEEN THE PARTIES. WITHOUT EXAMINING T HESE DETAILS, ONE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO DECIDE THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THE NON - RESIDENT AGENT. THEREFORE, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE ENTIRE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT IT W AS SALES COMMISSION TOWARDS PROCUREMENT OF ORDERS FROM ABROAD. [PARA 8] IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. [PARA 9] 4.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE INCLINED TO REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH SIMILAR DIRECTION AS GIVEN IN THE ABOVE REFERRED CASE. THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE CANE DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO .3,39,720/ - IS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. 5.1 THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHILE COMPUTING THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE I.T.A. NO . 2137 /M/ 14 6 ASSESSING OFFICER, THE EXPENDITURE IS NOT WHOLLY AND EXCLUS IVELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THIS IS NOTHING BUT THE CONTRIBUTION TO THE GOVERNMENT SCHOOL S WINDOW FABRICATION WORK AND FIRE STATION SHED WORK AND THESE CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY LAID OUT FOR THE BUSINES S PURPOSES OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5.2 ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THESE TYPES OF CONTRIBUTION REFLECTS THE CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSE E COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE ALLOWED WITH RELEVANT PAYMENT . SINCE THESE EXPENDITURES ARE INCURRED FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITH CANE AREA FARMERS OF BANNARI AND SATHYAMANGALAM, IT IS A LLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. THUS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5.3 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ADMITTEDLY, THIS EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED TOWARDS CONTRIBU TION TO GOVERNMENT SCHOOL S WINDOW FABRICATION WORK AND SHELTER FOR BUS PASSENGERS NEAR BANNARI AND PROVIDING WASTE COLLECTING CARTS TO SATHYAMANGALAM MUNICIPAL LIMIT. THESE EXPENDITURE MIGHT HAVE INDIRECTLY HELP IN CREATING GOODWILL IN THAT AREA. HOWEVER, THAT EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE EXPENDITURE, WHICH IS INCURRED FOR THE I.T.A. NO . 2137 /M/ 14 7 PURPOSE OF CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE LAID OUT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING BUSINESS UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. THIS EXPENDITURE BEING NOT IN THE NATURE SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT, IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED. AT BEST, IT COULD BE A CHARITY OR DONATION. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THIS EXPENDITURE. THUS, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RESTORED. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 6. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS WITH REGARD TO FAILURE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO HOLD THAT R&D LAB EXPENSES ARE IN THE NATURE OF DEFERRED REVENUE EXPEN SES AS SUCH QUALIFIES FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE ACT. 6.1 THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AN EXPENDITURE OF .23,20,948/ - AS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND LAB EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED T HIS EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THIS EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE ALLOWED EITHER UNDER SECTIONS 30 TO 36 OR UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. 6.2 ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE SUGARCANE PLANT REQUIRES RE SEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE. FURTHER, REGULAR RESEARCH HAS TO BE DONE FOR PRODUCING QUALITY SUGARCANE FOR HIGHER RECOVERY PERCENTAGE OF I.T.A. NO . 2137 /M/ 14 8 SUGAR. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE EMPLOYED LAB ASSISTANTS, TECHNICIANS, ASSISTANT, ETC. FOR NECESSARY R&D TO HELP TH E DEVELOPMENT OF BIO PRODUCTS, MICRO NUTRIENTS AND MIXTURE EXPENSES. THE R & D LAB EXPENDITURE ARE INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND IS ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. AGAINST THIS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 6.3 THIS AMOUNT WAS INCURRED FOR THE PAYMENT OF SALARY TO LAB ASSISTANTS IN DAY - TO - DAY OPERATION OF ASSESSEE BUSINESS, WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT OF BIO PRODUCTS, MICRO NUTRIENTS AND MIXTURE EXPENSES. THOUGH, IT LOOKS LIKE CONTINUOUSLY CARRYING R & D SINCE IT IS A DAY - TO - DAY EXPENDITURE FOR MAINTENANCE OF STANDARD OF THE PRODUCT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE CARRIED OUT ANY EXPENDITURE IN R & D TO CONSIDER IT UNDER SECTION 35D OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS REJECTED. 7. THE LAST GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELEING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT . SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 IN I.T.A. NO. 1798/MDS/2012 AND VIDE ORDER DATED 29.11.2012, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER: 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE ORDE RS OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE WHICH ARE PLACED ON RECORD. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I.T.A. NO . 2137 /M/ 14 9 (APPEALS), BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE HELD THAT THE THREE CO - POWER GENERATION UNITS ARE INDEPENDENT UNITS AND DEDUCTIO N UNDER SEC.80IA OF THE ACT HAS TO BE ALLOWED SEPARATELY FOR THESE UNITS WITHOUT CLUBBING THE PROFITS OF WIND MILL DIVISION. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD AS UNDER: - I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND PERUSED THE MATE R IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD . THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS FOUR INDIVIDUAL INDUSTRIAL UNDE R TAKINGS FOR GENERATING POWER. AS FAR AS THE 80LA DEDUCTION IS CONCERNED THE COMPANY HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF 20MW TAMIL NADU CO - GENERATION, 16MW KARNATAKA CO - GE NERATION AND 20MW KARNATAKA CO - GENERATION UNITS AND IN RESPECT OF THESE THREE UNDERTAKINGS AUDIT REPORT I N FORM 10CCB WAS FIELD . THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED ANY AUDIT REPORT UNDER 10CCB FOR THESE WIND ENERGY UNITS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 . 3.2009, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS MAINTAINED SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND PREPARED THE SEPARATE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET FOR EACH OF THE THREE POWER GENERATION UNITS WHICH ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IA. THE THREE UNDERTAKINGS HAVE SEPARATE POWER PURCHA SE AGREEMENTS UNRELATED TO ONE ANOTHER AND SEPARATE APPROVALS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT ON DIFFERENT DATES . IN THE CASE OF THE THREE UNDERTAKINGS, THE POWER IS PREDOMINANTLY SUPPLIED TO STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDS ON WHOM INVOICES ARE RAIS ED ON MONTHLY BASIS AND PAYMENTS ARE RECEIVED FROM ELECTRICITY BOARDS . THE WIND MILL DIVISION COMMENCED ITS COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004 - 05 AND SINCE THERE WAS NO POSITIVE INCOME IN TERMS OF SECTION 80IA(5), NO CLAIM IS MADE U/S.80I A. IT IS TO NOTE THAT ON SIMILAR ISSUE THE HON'BLE ITAT, CHENNAI FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. I HAD ALSO DECIDED THE ISSUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT FOLLOW ING THE HON'BLE ITAT DECISION FOR EAR L IER YEARS. MY ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT, CHENNAI IN ITA NO.160/MDS/2011 AND ITA NO.1482/MDS/2011. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT NO NEW FACTS OR CASE LAWS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER . IN RESULT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED . 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THI S TRIBUNAL IN ITA I.T.A. NO . 2137 /M/ 14 10 NO.160/MDS/2011 AND ITA NO.1482/MDS/2011 RESPECTIVELY FOR THE ASST. YEARS 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT FILE ANY MATERI AL BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN REVERSED IN APPEAL BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. HENCE, WE COULD NOT FIND ANY GOOD AND JUSTIFIED REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 7.1 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE GR OUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 27 TH JUNE , 201 6 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHEN NAI, DATED, THE 27 . 0 6 .201 6 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.