The ACIT, Circle-2, JAMNAGAR V. Mayant Metallurgical Pvt. Ltd., JAMNAGAR

ITA 251/RJT/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 25124914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AVINASH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: DM RINDANI
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 43B; 143(3)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL; RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT . .. . . . . . , , , , . .. . . . . . , , , , $ $ $ $ BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA, JM AND SHRI D. K . SRIVASTAVA, AM ITA NO. 251/RJT/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ASSTT. C.I.T. V. MAYANK METALLURGICAL PVT. LTD. CIRCLE-2, JAMNAGAR. 283, GIDC, PHAASE-II, DARED JAMNAGAR. . PAN:AABCM4319E DATE OF HEARING : 04-04-2012. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27-04-2012. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI D. M. RINDANI, C.A. REVENUE BY: SHRI AVINASH KUMAR, D.R . / / / / ORDER . .. . . . . . / D. K. SRIVASTAVA: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 23-03-2011. THE APPEAL RELATES TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. THE ASSESSEE, A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, IS ENGA GED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF EXTRUDED RODS, WIRE ETC. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27-11-2003 RETURNING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.14,08,780/-. ASSESSME NT U/S 143(3) OF THE I-T ACT, 1961 WAS COMPLETED ON 27-03-2006, WHICH WAS SUBSEQU ENTLY REOPENED U/S.147/148. ORDER OF RE-ASSESSMENT WAS PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3)/147 ON 05- 12-2009 IN WHICH A FEW ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO WHICH ARE NOW SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT. 3. GROUND NO.1 AND 2 TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT READ A S UNDER:- 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION OF RS.12,67,725/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDERVALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. 2. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY FOLLOWED THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND TH E FINISHED GOODS WERE VALUED AT THE COST PRICE OR MARKET PRICE WHIC HEVER WAS LOWER EXCLUSIVE OF EXCIDE DUTY PAYABLE. THEREFORE, THE C LOSING STOCK WAS REQUIRED TO BE ADJUSTED AS PROVIDED IN PROVISIONS O F SECTION 145A OF THE ACT AND THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DO SO RESULTED IN UNDERVALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK TO THE EXTENT O F EXCISE DUTY PAYABLE. ITA 251/2011. 2 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN PARAT -4 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER AS UNDER:- 4. SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS.12,67,775 BEING CENVAT CREDIT BALANCE, WHICH IN OPINION OF AO SHOUL D BE ADDED IN VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK. AT HE OUTSET MY ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO DECISION IN APPELLANTS OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2004-2005 APPEAL NO. CIT(A)/JAM/2 06/09-10, IN WHICH SIMILAR ADDITION WAS DELETED BY ME HOLDING AS UNDER :- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE. I FIND THA T APPELLANT HAS ACCOUNTED FOR EXCISE DUTY ON REMOVAL OF FINISHED GO ODS. THUS THE EXCISE DUTY IS DEBITED AS AN WHEN THE GOODS ARE CLE ARED FROM THE FACTORY AND NOT WHEN THEY ARE PRODUCED. THEREFORE, EXCISE DUTY ELEMENT IN VALUE OF STOCK WAS NEVER DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT BECAUSE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE, ONLY COST OF GOODS HAS BEEN SEPARATELY TAKEN TO CENVAT CREDIT ACCOUNT. THEREFOR E, IF THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK IS INCREASED BY THE VALUE OF CENVAT C REDIT, THEN SIMILAR AMOUNT WILL HAVE TO BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION AS CO ST OF PURCHASE. EVEN SECTION 145A PROVIDES THAT IF SUCH ADJUSTMENT IS TO BE MADE THEN SAID VALUATION HAS TO BE DONE FOR BOTH PURCHASE AND SALE OF GOODS. THE AO CANNOT RESORT TO VALUE ONLY THE CLOSING STOC K BY INCLUDING CENVAT CREDIT BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT PURCHASES H AVE BEEN VALUED WITHOUT INCLUDING THE EXCISE DUTY. THEREFORE, ACTUA L EFFECT ON THE PROFIT WOULD BE NIL. I ALSO FIND THAT HONBLE ITAT, RAJKOT BENCH IN APPELLANTS OWN CASE OF S.Y. 2004-05 IN ITA NO. 381/RJT/2009 HA S DELETED SIMILAR ADDITION VIDE ITS ORDER DTD.30/12/2009. AS THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, EXCISE DUTY WAS NEVER CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION AS COST OF PURCHASE, THIS ADDITION HAS TO BE DELETED BECAUSE IF THIS AMOUNT IS ADDED, SIMILAR AMOUNT WIL L HAVE TO BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION AS COST OF PURCHASE, WHICH W ILL FINALLY RESULT IN NO ADDITION AT ALL. THEREFORE, ADDITION OF RS.21,27 ,572 IS DELETED. AS THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, THIS ADDITION FOR THIS YEAR IS ALSO DELETED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE LD. DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT POINT OUT AS TO WHY THE AFORESAID ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) WAS UNREASONABLE OR INCORRECT. IN OUR VIEW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORR ECTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL ASPECT OF THE CASE WHILE DELETING THE IMPUGNE D ADDITION. WE THEREFORE, ENDORSE THE SAME. GROUND NO.2 AND 2 ARE DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO.3 TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT READS AS UND ER:- 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN DELETI NG THE ADDITION OF ITA 251/2011. 3 RS.1,46,851/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF PA YMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND AND AS SU CH IN HOLDING THAT THE PAYMENT MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF R ETURN OF INCOMEU/S.139(1) OF THE ACT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCT ION. 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE I N PARA-6.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS UNDER:- 6.3 DISALLOWANCE U/S. 43B ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY IN P AYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND: IT IS SEEN FROM THE DETAILS AS PER FORM NO.3CD THAT THERE IS DELAY IN DEPOSIT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND OF RS.1 ,46,581/- WHICH INCLUDES RS.73,452/- PAID WITHIN THE GRACE PERIOD OF 5-DAYS. THE SAME IS AS UNDER:- MONTH DUE DATE OF PAYMENT EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF DATE OF PAYMENT. APRIL-02 15/-5-2002 6,291/- 17/05/2002 MAY02 15/06/2002 5,564/- 17/06/2002 JUNE-02 15/07/2002 6,207/- 19/07/2002 JULY-02 15/08/2002 19,523/- 20/08/2002 AUGUST-02 15/09/2002 19,056/- 16/09/2002 )CTOBER-02 15/11/2002 16,758/- 18/11/2002 NOVEMBER-02 15/12/2002 14,505/- 26/12/2002 DECEMBER-02 15/01/2003 21,694/- 31/03/2003 JANUARY-03 15/02/2003 19,812/- 31/03/2003 FEBRUARY-03 15/03/2003 17,442/- 31/03/2003 1,46,851/- 6.32 IN THIS REGARDS THE ASSESSEE HAS VIDE HIS SUBM ISSION DTD.26/11/2009, HAS CONTENDED THAT:- AS REGARD TO THE DELAYED PAYMENT OF THE CONTRIBUTI ON FROM THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME ARE DELAYED BY 6 -DAYS, 70 DAYS, 39-DAYS AND 11- DAYS RESPECTIVELY. IT WAS THE HONEST BELIEF THAT IF SUCH PAYMENT IS MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN, IT WOULD NOT BE TREAT ED AS DELAYED PAYMENT AND THUS THE CLAIM. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE AUDIT OR, WHO AUDITED THE BOOKS U/S.44AB, HAS NOT MADE ANY REMARKS. THEREFORE, IT IS REQUEST ED TO PLEASE TREAT THE PAYMENT AS IN TIME IT IS MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN. 6.33 THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CORRECT . THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION43B READ WITH EXPLANATION BELOW CLAUSE (VA) OF SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 36 AND SUB CLAUSE(X) OF SECTION 2(24) OF TH E IT ACT ARE VERY CLEAR. THE PAYMENTS TO P F & ESIC ARE TO BE MADE WITHIN TH E DUE DATE AS PER THE RELEVANT ACT. THE GRACE PERIOD OF 5 DAYS IS SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITA 251/2011. 4 DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OR DAMAGES FOR NON-COMPLIANC E WITH THE PROVIDENT FUND ACT. THEREFORE IT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY GIVE IMMUNITY OR RELAXATION TO THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARDS TO DEFAULT UNDER THE PROV ISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961. AS PER THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PROVIDENT FU ND CONTRIBUTION PAID AFTER THE DUE DATE I.E. 15 TH DAY OF THE CLOSING OF THE MONTH AND E.S.I.C. CONTRIBUTIONS PAID AFTER THE DUE DATE I.E. 21 ST DAY OF THE CLOSING OF THE MONTH, ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. 6.34 RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS PLACE ON THE DECISI ONS IN THE CASE OF M/S. HITECH INDIA PVT. LTD. 227 ITR 446 AND SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION LTD. 242 ITR 114. IN THIS REGARD, THE HEAD NOTE ON THE DECISION OF THE CASE OF SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION LTD. IS REPRODUCED BELOW : THOUGH SECTION 43B OF THE IT ACT,1961, IS RELATABL E TO PAYMENTS ACTUALLY MADE, THE MODALITY TO BE ADOPTED IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS OF CO NTRIBUTION OF ANY PROVIDENT FUND OR SUPERANNUATION FUND OR GRATUITY FUND OR ANY OTHE R FUND FOR THE WELFARE OF THE EMPLOYEES FOR GETTING THE DEDUCTION HAS BEEN PRESCR IBED. A TIME LIMIT HAS BEEN FIXED AND ONLY IF PAYMENT WAS MADE DURING THAT PERI OD, DEDUCTION CAN BE CLAIMED. THE PROVISO TO SECTION 43B LAYS DOWN THAT THE PAYME NT SHOULD BE MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE AS DEFINED IN THE EXPLANATION BELOW CLAUS E (VA) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 36. THE EXPRESSION DUE DATE MEANS THE T IME STIPULATED FOR THE PAYMENT. AS PER THE EXPLANATION TO CLAUSE (VA), FOR THE PURP OSE OF THE CLAUSE DUE DATE MEANS THE DATE BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED AS AN EMPLOYER TO CREDIT AN EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO THE EMPLOYEES ACCOUNT I N THE RELEVANT FUND. THE AMOUNT IS DEDUCTIBLE ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE CREDITS T HE AMOUNT TO THE EMPLOYEES ACCOUNT IN THE RELEVANT FUND ON OR BEFORE THE DUE D ATE BY WHICH HE IS LEGALLY OR CONTRACTUALLY REQUIRED TO DO SO. THE RIGHT TO DEDUC TION WOULD BE LOST IF THE SUM IS CREDITED AFTER DUE DATE. IT CANNOT BE AN INDEFINIT E DATE LEFT TO THE CHOICE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT UNDER THE MAIN PR OVISO OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT, THE PAYMENTS MADE DURING THE CURRENCY OF THE FINANC IAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION IN CERTAIN CA SES. BUT IN THE CASE OF PAYMENTS RELATING TO PROVIDENT FUND ETC. STRESS HAS BEEN LAI D DOWN ON PAYMENT WITHIN THE DUE DATE. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THE PAYMENT MA DE BEYOND THE DUE DATE ALSO QUALIFIES FOR DEDUCTION, IN VIEW OF THE PRESCRIPTIO N IN THE MAIN PROVISO ITSELF. HAD THAT BEEN LEGISLATIVE INTENT, THERE WAS NO NECESSITY TO ENACT THE PROVISO. THE LEGISLATURE IN ITS WISDOM HAS INCORPORATED THE PROVISO AND IT C ANNOT BE SAID TO BE WITHOUT A PURPOSED. 6.35 THE ASSESSEES CASE IS ALSO FULLY COVERED BY T HE DECISION OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, IN CASE OF CIT V/S. K.L. THIRA NI & CO. LTD. (1993) 68 TAXMAN 82 (CAL) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ITA 251/2011. 5 PROVISIONS FOR ESI LIABILITY AND THE PROVIDENT FUN D CONTRIBUTION WOULD BE COVERED BY THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 43B READ W ITH EXPLANATION BELOW CLAUSE (VA) OF SECTION 36(1) AND SUB-CLAUSE (X) OF SECTION 2 (24) AS THEY FALL UNDER CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 43B. A COMBINED READIN G OF THE PROVISIONS SHOWS THAT THE CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND OR SU PERANNUATION FUND OR A FUND UNDER THE ESI ACT ARE ALLOWABLE UNDER SECOND P ROVISO ONLY IF THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE WITHIN THE DUE DATE UNDER THE REL EVANT ACT OR THE RULES OR THE ORDERS GOVERNING SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS 6.36 ACCORDINGLY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTIN G TO RS.1,46,851/- BEING DELAYED PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO P.F. IS DISALLOWED. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATELY INITIATED U/S.21 7(1) FOR FILING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 8. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN PARA- 5 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER AS UNDER: 5. THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST ADDITION OF R S.1,46,851/- BEING PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF U/S.43B. A T THE OUTSET MY ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO DECISION IN APPELLANT OWN CASE FOR AY 2004-2005 APPEAL NO. CIT(A)/JAM/206/09-10, IN WHICH SIMILAR ADDITION WAS DELETED BY ME. AO IS DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THAT ORDER. HENCE ADDITION OF RS .1,46,851 IS DELETED, AS THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY DECISION OF DEIHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AIMIL LTD. IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. AT THE TIME OF H EARING, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON TWO JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, NAMELY, CIT VS. AIMIL LTD. & OTHERS, 3 21 ITR 508 (DEL.) AND CIT VS. P.M. ELECTRONICS LTD.313 ITR 161 (DEL) IN SUPPORT O F THE ORDER OF C.I.T.(A). THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS RELIED UP ON THE JUDGMENTS OF THREE HIGH COURTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CASE. THEY ARE: HITECH IND IA PVT. LTD. V. C.I.T., 227 ITR 446 (AP.); CIT V. SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION LTD. 242 ITR 114 (KERALA) AND CIT V. K.L. THIRANI & CO. LTD. 68 TAXMAN 82 (CAL.). PERUSAL OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT V. P. M. ELECTRONICS LTD., 313 ITR 161 SHOWS THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS DISSENTED FROM THE VIE W TAKEN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT V. PAMVI TISSUES LTD., 215 CTR (B OM) 150. GOING BY THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY BOTH THE PARTIES, IT IS SE EN THAT MAJORITY OF THE HIGH COURTS ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO. 10. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE DEALING WITH THE IS SUE OF DEDUCTIBILITY OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND. SECTION 36(1)(VA) PROVIDES THAT THE DEDUCTION OF ANY SUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES SHALL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNLESS THE SAID SUM IS CR EDITED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EMPLOYEES ACCOUNT IN THE RELEVANT FUND ON OR BEFOR E THE DUE DATE. DUE DATE HAS ITA 251/2011. 6 BEEN LAID DOWN IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 36(1)(VA). OUT OF TOTAL SUM OF RS.1,46,851/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTIO N TO PROVIDENT FUND, A SUM OF RS.73,000/- OR SO WAS PAID AFTER THE EXPIRY OF GRAC E PERIOD WHILE THE REMAINING SUM WAS PAID WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED GRACE PERIOD. IT IS THUS, CLEAR THAT THE SUM NOT PAID WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE GRACE PERIOD WAS NOT PAID BY THE DUE DATE IN TERMS OF SECTION 36(1)(VA) AND THEREFORE WAS LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED U/S 36(1)(VA). 11. THE QUESTION THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS W HETHER A SUM WHICH IS OTHERWISE NOT ALLOWABLE U/S.36(1)(VA) CAN BE ALLOWE D AS DEDUCTION U/S 43B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THE ANSWER IS IN NEGATIVE AND IT IS PROVIDED BY SECTION 43B ITSELF. SEC. 43B IS A NON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE. IT PROVIDES THAT A DEDUCTION OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT IN RESPECT OF S UMS SPECIFIED THEREIN SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS ACT UALLY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT A DEDUCTION MUST FIRST BE OT HERWISE ALLOWABLE UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT BEFORE SEC.43B CAN BE PRESSED INTO S ERVICE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE IMPUGNED SUM IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S.36(1)(VA) AND THE REFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT. SEC TION 43B CANNOT BE PRESSED INTO SERVICE TO ALLOW DEDUCTION WHICH IS OTHERWISE NOT A LLOWABLE UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS THEREFORE REVERSED TO THE AFORESAID EXTENT. RESULTANTLY, THE AMOUNT REPRESENTING THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PAID WITHIN THE GRACE PERIOD SHA LL BE DISALLOWED BY THE AO. GROUND NO.3 IS ALLOWED TO THE AFORESAID EXTENT. 12. GROUND NO.4 READS AS UNDER:- 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING ADDITION RS.54,729/- MADE ON THE ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF EXCESS DEPRECIATION ON ELECTRIC FITTINGS AND IN HOLDING THE SAME AS PLANT AND MACHINERY. 13. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN PARA -8 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER AS UNDER:- 8. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE. IT IS SE EN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF ELECTRIC INSTALLATION AT TH E RATE OF 25% WHICH IS PART AND PARCEL OF PLANT AND MACHINERY. AO HAS TREATED I T AS IN THE BLOCK OF 15%. IN MY OPINION AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DOING SO. HEN CE ADDITION OF RS.57,429/- IS DELETED. 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. IN OUR VIEW, T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL ASPECT OF THE CAS E. WE THEREFORE, CONFIRM HIS DECISION IN THIS BEHALF. GROUND NO.4 TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. ITA 251/2011. 7 15. GROUND NOS. 5, 6 AND 7 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AN D THEREFORE THEY DO NOT REQUIRE ADJUDICATION. 16. APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS PARTLY ALLOWE D. ) + 27-04-2012 . ) THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 27 -04-2012. SD/- SD/- ( .. / T. K. SHARMA) ( .. / D. K. SRIVASTAVA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER +/ ORDER DATE 27 -04-2012. /RAJKOT ) )) ) 12 12 12 12 32 32 32 32 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. 6 / APPELLANT-THE ASSTT.C.I. T., CIRCLER-2, JAMNAGAR . 2. 186 / RESPONDENT-MAYANK METALLURGICAL PVT. LTD., DARED , JAMNAGAR. 3. ; / CONCERNED CIT, JAMNAGAR.. 4. ;- / CIT (A), JAMNAGAR. 5. 2 1, , / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , , , ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, RAJKOT