DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI V. TRINETRAM CONSULTANTS P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2277/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4012 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K NAYAK
• Assessee Lawyers: APURV GANDHI
• Keywords: Business income; Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

1 M/S TRINETRAM CONSULTANTS P LTD. ITA 5327/M UM /201 3 ITA 2277/MUM/201 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E , MUMBAI , , BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5 327 /MUM/201 3 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 11 ) ITA NO. 2277/MUM/201 4 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10) D CIT 8 (3), ROOM NO. 217 , AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 020 VS M/S TRINETRAM CONSULTANTS P LTD. , 601/2 VINAYAK AAGAN, 93 - A OLD PRABHADEVI ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 025 PAN: AA A C T 7220 Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A K NAYAK RESPONDENT BY : SHRI APURV GANDHI /DATE OF HEARING : 13 - 04 - 201 6 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 - 04 - 2016 ORDER , . : - PER AMIT SHUKLA, J. M. : T HE AFORESAID APPEAL S HA VE BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT ; ONE , AGAINST IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16 TH MAY, 2013 PASSED BY CIT(A) - 18, MUMBAI FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AND SECOND, AGAINST ORDER DATED 17 TH JANUARY, 2014 IN RELATION TO THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2 M/S TRINETRAM CONSULTANTS P LTD. ITA 5327/M UM /201 3 ITA 2277/MUM/201 4 2. WE WILL FIRST TAKE - UP INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 5327/MUM/2014 , VIDE WHICH FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW , THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT PROFIT ON SALE OF SHARES SHOULD BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE HIGH FREQUENCY AND LARGE VOLUME OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES / MUTUAL FUNDS EVIDE NCED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON THE SYSTEMATIC ACTIVITY OF TRADING IN SHARES AND HENCE THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN TAXING THE PROFITS UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY DEALING IN SHARES AND EARNING PROFITS / INCURRING LOSSES THEREFROM AS APPARENT FORM THE RECORDS OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 AND ONWARDS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HELD AS AN INVESTOR BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS, THE SAME WOULD NOT AUTOMATIC ALLY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CARRYING OUT BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SHARES / MUTUAL FUNDS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SINCE THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND A DIVERGENT APPROACH CAN BE TAKE N, IF WARRANTED ON FACTS, AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GOPAL PUROHIT (336 ITR 287). 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GOPAL PUROHIT (336 ITR 287), THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS LAID DOWN ANY PROPOSITION OF LAW AND ON THE CONTRARY EXPRESSLY STATED THAT NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THAT CASE AND THEREFORE, RELIEF HAS BEEN WRONGLY ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT CA SE BY CITING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOPAL PUROHIT. 3 . BRIEF FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ARE THAT , THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CONSULTANCY SERVICES RELATED TO TOUR AND T RAVELS AND A LLIED SER VICE 3 M/S TRINETRAM CONSULTANTS P LTD. ITA 5327/M UM /201 3 ITA 2277/MUM/201 4 AND IN THE ACTIVITY OF TRADING IN PAINTINGS AND FUTURE & OPTIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.67,55,358/ - ON SALE OF SHARES. THE AO OBSERVED THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 , IDEN TICAL ISSUE WAS INVOLVED, WHEREIN THE STCG DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF SHARES WAS BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME . THE AO OBSERVED THAT IN THIS YEAR ALSO , I T SHOULD BE TREATED IN SIMILAR MANNER, THAT IS, AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. WHI LE HOLDING SO, HE HELD THAT HE IS RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08. HOWEVER HE FAILED TO ANALYSE THE FACTS INDEPENDENTLY AND APPRECIATING THE CORRECT IMPORT OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISIO NS. 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE THAT, THE ISSUE W AS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 . LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 05.04.2013 HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION AND FINDING OF THE CIT(A) QUOTING THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 3.3, WHICH READS AS UNDER: - I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, ORDER OF THE AO AND FACTS OF THE CASE CAREFULLY, IT IS NOTICED THAT THIS IS ALREADY DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR AY 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO BUT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 05.04.2013 HAS REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY IGNORING AS UNDER: - 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE AU THORITIES BELOW AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE OF ASSESSABILITY OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS AND INCOME FROM BUSINESS IN SUCH KIND OF TRANSACTIONS HAVE COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN LARGE NUMBER 4 M/S TRINETRAM CONSULTANTS P LTD. ITA 5327/M UM /201 3 ITA 2277/MUM/201 4 OF CASES. HOWEVER, THERE IS A V ERY THIN LINE OF DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE ACTIVITIES WHICH CAN BE CONSIDERED PURELY FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSE AND FOR TRADING PURPOSE IN SUCH KIND OF CASES. THE PARAMETERS LIKE VOLUME, FREQUENCY OF TRANSACTIONS, CONTINUITY, HOLDING PERIOD, THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, TREATMENT GIVEN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HOST OF OTHER FACTORS, THOUGH ARE VERY RELEVANT FOR JUDGING A TRANSACTION LIKE THIS, WHETHER IT IS PURELY FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSE OR FOR TRADING ACTIVITIES. HOWEVER, THESE PARAMETERS MAY, AT TIMES, BREA K DOWN IN CERTAIN CASES AS THERE CANNOT BE ANY ALL EMBRACING FORMULA TO JUDGE THESE KINDS OF TRANSACTIONS. IT HAS BEEN QUITE A PHENOMENON IN THE LAST DECADE THAT MANY PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY HAD INVESTED IN THE EQUITY SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS TO MAXIMIZE THEI R INVESTMENT WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD. EVEN TRANSACTIONS ARE BEING ENTERED FOR A BRIEF PERIOD. TO JUDGE SUCH TRANSACTIONS, ONE HAS TO ADOPT A PRAGMATIC APPROACH LOOKING TO THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND MERITS OF THE CASE, KEEPING IN MIND THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHOLE GAMUT OF TRANSACTIONS, WHETHER IT IS FOR COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATION OR NOT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, SIMILAR ISSUE IS INVOLVED I.E., THE TREATMENT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF SHARES AND MUTUAL FUND AGGREGATING RS.1,83,55,523/ - , IS W HETHER ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE REVENUES CASE IS THAT LOOKING TO THE VOLUME AND FREQUENCY OF THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH ARE QUITE HIGH AND THE PERIOD OF HOLDING IS ALSO SHORT, THEREFORE , GAIN FROM TRANSACTIONS HAS TO BE TREATED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. ON A PERUSAL OF THE TRANSACTION, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GAIN ON SALE OF EQUITY SHARES AT RS.91,32,471/ - , AND GAIN ON SALE OF MUTUAL FUND OF 5 M/S TRINETRAM CONSULTANTS P LTD. ITA 5327/M UM /201 3 ITA 2277/MUM/201 4 RS.92,23,053/ - . FO R SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS, THE NUMBER OF SCRIP ENTERED INTO ARE 74, HOWEVER, IN MOST OF THE CASES, THE AVERAGE HOLDING PERIOD IS FAR MORE THAN 100 DAYS. THE OVERALL AVERAGE OF PERIOD OF HOLDING IS AROUND 184 DAYS. INSOFAR AS THE ALLEGATION OF THE REVENUE IS CONCERNED THAT THE NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKEN IN THE SALE OF 74 SCRIPS, THE SAME CANNOT BE TAKEN ON PRIMARY PARAMETER TO HOLD THAT IT SHOULD BE TREATED AS BUSINESS ACTIVITY BECAUSE IT IS A KNOWN PHENOMENON IN STOCK EXCHANGE THAT A SINGL E TRANSACTION IS SPLIT INTO MANY SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS WHILE TRADING IN THE STOCK EXCHANGE THROUGH COMPUTERS. SUCH TRANSACTIONS, AT TIMES, GIVE UNREALISTIC FIGURES OF NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS. IN THIS CASE, FOLLOWING IMPORTANT FACTS ARE RELEVANT WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE AS A WHETHER THE GAINS FROM THE TRANSACTIONS OF SHARES IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS OR UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. FIRSTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS, ALL THROUGHOUT, BEEN SHOWING PURCHASE OF SHARES AS INVESTMENT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE SAME HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED IN THE BALANCE SHEET UNDER THE HEAD INVESTMENT; SECONDLY, SUCH A NATURE OF TRANSACTION SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD INVESTMENT HAS BEEN TREATED TO BE CAPITAL GAIN IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 04 - 05 AND 2005 - 06 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS WHEREIN THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED U/S 143(3). IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS ACCEPTED THE GAIN FROM TRANSACTGIONS OF SHARES TO BE ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEA D SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THUS, IF THE SAME FACTS ARE PERMEATING THROUGH ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, IS CANNOT BE HELD THAT ON SIMILAR NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS, THE INCOME FORM SHARES HAS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS; 6 M/S TRINETRAM CONSULTANTS P LTD. ITA 5327/M UM /201 3 ITA 2277/MUM/201 4 THIRDLY, ALL THE TRANSACTIO NS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DELIVERY BASED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UNDERTAKEN ANY SPECULATIVE OR DERIVATIVE TRADING OF SHARES. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEES INTENTION WAS NEVER TO INDULGE IN TRADING OF SHARES; AND FOURTHLY, AS CLARIFIED BY THE LEA RNED COUNSEL, TO INTEREST BEARING BORROWED FUNDS OR LOANS HAVE BEEN DIVERTED FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES RATHER THEY HAVE BEEN PURCHASED FROM THE SURPLUS FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. LASTLY, FROM THE DETAILS OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS, IT IS SEEN THAT M OST OF THE GAIN HAS COME FROM SALE OF MUTUAL FUNDS, WHICH CANNOT BE TRADED IN STOCK EXCHANGE. THIS ALSO GOES TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINLY AN INVESTOR. FROM THESE FACTS, IT CAN BE VERY WELL CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEES ATTENTION WAS TO PURCHASE THE SHARES FOR HOLDING IT AS INVESTMENT. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FINDINGS AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE GAIN ARISING FROM SALE OF SHARES IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME F ROM BUSINESS AS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A). CONSEQUENTLY , THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ARE HEREBY SET ASIDE AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS BINDING ON THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO TREAT THE INCOME OF SALE OF SHARES AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN PLACE OF BUSINESS INCOME. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 7 M/S TRINETRAM CONSULTANTS P LTD. ITA 5327/M UM /201 3 ITA 2277/MUM/201 4 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL HAD SUBMITTED THAT SINCE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE PERMEATING THROUGH IN THIS YEAR ALSO, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. HE SUBMITTED A COMPAR ATIVE CHART OF NUMBER OF SCRIPS UNDERTAKEN FOR PURCHASE AND SALES AND AVERAGE PERIOD ON HOLDING SHARES WHICH IS AS UNDER: PARTICULARS AY 2006 - 07 AY 2007 - 08 AY 2008 - 09 AY 2009 - 10 AY 2010 - 11 NO OF SCRIPS 74 40 22 20 30 NO OF PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS IN S HARES 119 71 56 3 9 45 NO OF SA L E TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES 153 130 44 50 62 AVERAGE PERIOD OF HOLDING OF SHARES 107 184 130 188 74 THUS, ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT FINDING GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE FIND THAT AO HAS MERELY RELIED UPON THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08, WHICH ADMITTEDLY HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN A SSESSEES OWN CASE IN THOSE YEARS. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN DETAIL H AS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY BEEN INCORPORATED BY THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, CONSISTENT WITH THE E ARLIER YEARS PRECEDENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) AND SAME IS AFFIRMED. A CCORDINGLY GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 7 . NOW, WE WILL TAKE SECOND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO .2277/MUM/2014 FOR AY 2009 - 10 VIDE WHICH FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT HOLDING THAT THE ISS UE INVOLVED IS A DEBATABLE ONE. 8 M/S TRINETRAM CONSULTANTS P LTD. ITA 5327/M UM /201 3 ITA 2277/MUM/201 4 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE TREATMENT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS BUSINESS INCOME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASS ED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR AY 2006 - 07 AND AY 2007 - 08, WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) ON SAME SET OF FACTS IN THE APPELLATE ORDERS DATED 25.03.2011. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE S CONTENTION THAT PROFIT ON SALE OF SHARES SHOULD BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE HIGH FREQUENCY AND LARGE VOLUME OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES / MUTUAL FUNDS EVIDENCED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRY ING ON THE SYSTEMATIC ACTIVITY OF TRADING IN SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS AND HENCE THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN TAXING THE PROFITS UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GOPAL PUROHIT (336 ITR 287) (BOM) THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS NOT LAID DOWN ANY PROPOSITION OF LAW AND ON THE CONTRARY EXPRESSLY STATED THAT NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THAT CASE AND THEREFORE, CIT(A)S RELI ANCE ON THE SAID JUDGMENT WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IS MISPLACED . 8 . HERE IN THIS CASE, THE LD. CIT( A) IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS (AS DISCUSSED IN THE EARLIER APPEAL) HAS HELD THAT, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF TREATMENT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS BEING TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME BY THE AO IS INCORRECT AND ACCORDINGLY HE HAD DELETED THE SAID ADDITION. AGA INST THE SAID ORDER, THE REVENUE INSTEAD OF FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 154 ON THE GROUND THAT IN AY 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO , THEREFORE, ON SAME REASONING MATTER SHOULD BE DECIDED AGAINS T THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT IT IS DEBATABLE ISSUE AND IS BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 154. 9 M/S TRINETRAM CONSULTANTS P LTD. ITA 5327/M UM /201 3 ITA 2277/MUM/201 4 9 . AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW ; FIRSTLY , ONCE THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION ON MERITS THEN IT CANNOT BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 154 ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE EARLIER YEA R , THE CIT(A) HAS TAKEN A CONTRARY VIEW ; AND SECONDLY , IN THE AY 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08, THIS ISSUE HAD ALREADY BEEN SETTLED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FR OM THE STAGE OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE VERY BASIS OF APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 FAILS . ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 10 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH APRIL, 2016. SD/ - SD/ - ( ) ( ) (B R B ASKARAN ) ( AMIT SHUKLA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 13 TH APRIL, 2016 /COPY TO: - 1 ) / THE APPELLANT. 2 ) / THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT(A) - 18 , MUMBAI. 4 ) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 8 , MUMBAI. 5 ) , , / THE D.R. E BENCH, MUMBAI. 6 ) \ COPY TO GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / , ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI * . . *CHAVAN, SR.PS