M/s. Plastic Color Corporation, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-10(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 2523/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 252320514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 16-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL SRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Capital receipt; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD C BENCH BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2523 & 2544/AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 PLASTIC COLOR CORPORATION, D-11-12, SILVER ARC FLATS, KAVI NANALAL MARG, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD PAN NO. AADFP8588P INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(4), AHMEDABAD / V/S . / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-10(4), AHMEDABAD M/S PLASTIC COLOUR CORP. D-11, SILVER ARC FLAT, KAVINALALMARG, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD / APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY SHRI M.K.PATEL, AR /REVENUE BY SHRI P.L. KUREEL, SR-DR / DATE OF HEARING 16-04-2012 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15-05-2012 $ $ $ $ / // / ORDER PER T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS CROSS-APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE ARISE FROM THE COMMON ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APP EALS)-XVI, AHMEDABAD DATED 29-06-2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. T HE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- ITA NO.2544/AHD/2009 (BY REVENUE) ITA NO.2523 & 2544/AHD/2009 A.Y.2005-06 PLASTIC COLOR CORPN V. ITO WD-10(4) ABD PAGE 2 (1) LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND ON LAW TREAT ING EARNEST MONEY / LIQUIDATED DAMAGES OF RS.35,29,322/- AS CAPITAL REC EIPT INSTEAD OF REVENUE RECEIPT. (2) LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FINDINGS OF A SSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REDUCED THE EARNEST MONEY / DE POSIT FROM THE COST OF ASSETS WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD, WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN ON SUCH SALE AS PER SEC.51 OF I.T. ACT . (3) LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO ANALYSE ALL THE RELEVANT F ACTS IN DETAIL AND IN PROPER PROSPECTIVE IN DECIDING THE ISSUE INCLUDING HIS DIRECTIONS TO APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 51 OF THE I.T. ACT WITHOUT M ENTIONING / VERIFYING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. (4) IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD . CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- ITA NO. 2523/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) (1) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD HAS GRI EVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN EXCEEDING JURISDICTION, AND MAK ING UNWARRANTED, OBSERVATIONS IN PARA 3.4 ON PAGE 19 OF THE ORDER UN DER APPEAL REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 51 OF THE I.T. A CT, 1961 AND PERTAINING TO A.Y. NOT IN APPEAL BEFORE LEARNED C.I.T.(A). FIRST WE TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.2544/AH D/2009. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE RE CEIVED AMOUNT OF RS.35,29,322/- ON ACCOUNT OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGE AND CLAIMED AS EXEMPTED INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SALE FOR THE LAND, BUILDINGS, PLANT & MACHINERY TO STERLITE INDUSTRIES LTD. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ABOVE COMPANY BACKED OUT FROM ITS AGREEMENT TO PURC HASE THE ABOVE ASSETS FOR WHICH ASSESSEE FILED CIVIL SUIT AGAINST THE SAI D COMPANY BEFORE THE LD. CITY CIVIL COURT, AHMEDABAD FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGE AND FO R UNFULFILLMENT OF THE CONTRACT. THEREAFTER, ASSESSEE HAD UNCONDITIONALLY WITHDRAWN THE CIVIL SUIT AND RECEIVED AMOUNT OF RS.35,29,322/- AS LIQUIDATED DAM AGE AND ABOVE AMOUNT OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGE RECEIVED FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF SUIT IS AN INCOME ITA NO.2523 & 2544/AHD/2009 A.Y.2005-06 PLASTIC COLOR CORPN V. ITO WD-10(4) ABD PAGE 3 CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO BY GIVING FOLLOWING REASONS:- 1) THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR S ALE ON 12/08/1991 TO SALE THE FIX ASSET VIZ. LAND, BUILDING, PLANT AND M ACHINERY, ETC. TO STERLITE INDUSTRIES LIMITED WHO INTENDS TO TAKE OVER THE UND ERTAKING OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER TERMS AND CONDITIONS AGREED UPON IN THE AGRE EMENT FOR SALE. HOWEVER, STERLITE INDUSTRIES LIMITED BACKED OUT FROM ITS AGR EEMENT TO PURCHASE THE ASSETS AND ASSESSEE FILED CIVIL SUIT FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGE IN THE AHMEDABAD CIVIL COURT. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.35,29,322/- AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGE AND FOR UNFULFILMET OF THE CONTRA CT FOR THE SALE OF ASSETS BY WAY OF UNCONDITIONAL WITHDRAWN OF THE SUIT AGAINST THE STERLITE INDUSTRIES LIMITED. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE ABOVE AMOUNT AS EXEMPT INCOME CONSIDERING THE SAME AS CAPITAL RECEIPTS. THE EXPLA NATION FURNISHED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE ISSUE WAS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY. AS ANY AMOUNT REC EIVED IN TERMINATION OF CONTRACT IS THE REVENUE RECEIPT. THIS IS FURTHER CO LLABORATED FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT THE ABOVE AMOUNT HAVE BEEN CREDIT IN THE PROFI T AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS REVENUE RECEIPTS. MOREOVER, ACTUALLY WHEN THE PROPE RTY WAS SOLD, THE ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER REDUCED TO COST OF ASSETS NOR ENHANCE SALE CONSIDERATION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3529322/-. THEREF ORE, AMOUNT OF RS.3529322/- RECEIVED AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGE IS CHARG EABLE TO TAX AND REQUIRED TO BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE. 2. AS PER THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT DATED 12/08/1991 B ETWEEN ASSESSEE AND STERLITE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO CO MPLY WITH CERTAIN CONDITION SUCH AS TO OBTAIN NOC FROM GIDC FROM TRANSFER OF LE ASE HOLD LAND OF THE GOVERNMENT AND HAS ALSO TO OBTAIN NOC U/S. 269 QL O F THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, THE EARNEST MONEY, WAS DEPOSITED W ITH THE ACCOUNT OF SOLICITOR MALVI RANCHHOD & CO. WHO DEPOSITED IN THE FD ACCOUNTS. IN ORDINARY COURSE, THE AMOUNT OF EARNEST MONEY IS BEING FORFEI TED IN THE CASE IS THE PURCHASER DOES NOT FULFILL THE CONTRACT. THE ASSESS EE HAS FILED A CIVIL SUIT AGAINST THE PURCHASED BACKED OUT FROM THE CONTACT A ND THEREFORE WHATEVER AMOUNT OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGE RECEIVED IS NOTHING BUT THE FORFEITURE OF EARNEST MONEY BECAUSE IT IS VERY WELL KNOWN TO THE PURCHASE OF THAT HE WILL LOOSE THE CASE AND THEREFORE IT CAME WITH THE PROPOSAL TO SET TLE THE ISSUE ON AGREED TERM BEFORE THE COURT. THEREAFTER, THE SUIT WAS UNC ONDITIONALLY WITHDRAWN AND COURT HAS ALLOWED THEM TO WITHDRAW THE SUIT. 3. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE AMOUNT OF LIQUIDAT ED DAMAGE IS IN CAPITAL RECEIPT AND NOT A REVENUE RECEIPT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE . TO DECIDE WHETHER THE PARTICULAR RECEIPT IS REVENUE RECEIPT OF A CAPITAL RECEIPT, THE MOST AND IMPORTANT FACTOR IS THAT WHETHER THE SAME IS CREDIT ED IN TRADING FOR PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OR IS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED THE AMOUNT OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGE IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS INCOME AND REVENUE RECEIPTS. MOREOVER, RELEVANT TAX I.E., ADVANCE TAX HAS ALSO BEEN PAID ON SUCH INCOME CONSIDERING THE SAME AS REVENUE RECEIPT. HOWEVER, DUE ITA NO.2523 & 2544/AHD/2009 A.Y.2005-06 PLASTIC COLOR CORPN V. ITO WD-10(4) ABD PAGE 4 TO THE ADVISE TO THE SOME ONE, HE HAS CLAIMED THE S AME AS CAPITAL RECEIPT BY DEDUCTING FROM THE INCOME IN THE STATEMENT OF INCOM E. FURTHER DETAILED REASONING WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND HELD AS UNDER:- IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS ESTABLISHED BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT THE AMOUNT OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGE IS REVENUE RECEIPT AND REQUIRE D TO BE TAXED AS INCOME. THEREFORE, AMOUNT OF RS.35,29,322/- IS ADDE D TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CONC EALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND ALSO FURNISHED THE INACCU RATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) IS INI TIATED. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICE R ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAD DISCUSSED THE FACT S IN DETAIL AT PAGES 2 TO 16 OF HIS ORDER AND PARA 3.1 TO 3.4 FINALLY HELD AS UNDER:- 3.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHOR IZED REPRESENTATIVE AND I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE COPIES OF THE AGREEMENT AND ORDER OF THE CONSENT. THERE IS NO DENIAL THAT THE APPELLANTS HAD ENTERED INTO A SALE AGREEMENT DT. 12-8-1991 TO SELL THE FIXED ASSETS NAMELY LAND, BUI LDING, PLANT & MACHINERY AND ALSO THE TECHNICAL KNOW HOW. IN THE CASE OF PLA STIC COLOR CORPN, THE LAND AND BUILDING IS AGREED TO BE SOLD FOR RS.29 LACS, M ACHINERY FOR RS.60 LACS & TECHNICAL KNOW HOW FOR RS.15 LACS. AS PER THIS AGRE EMENT, THE APPELLANTS WERE SUPPOSED TO PERFORM CERTAIN FUNCTIONS WHICH WE RE DULY DISCHARGED BY THE APPELLANTS AS UNDER:- NO. PARTICULARS DT OF COMPLIANCES 1 WRITTEN PERMISSION OF GIDC & STATE GOVT. OBTAINED 10-11-91 22-4-92, 4-12-91 2 RELEASE FROM BANK OF BARODA OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY MORTGAGED 27-12-91 11-12-91 3 INCOME TAX CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE U/S. 330A OBTAINED AND CLEARANCE U/S. 269(U)(D) 7-1-92 24-10-91 4 NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE OF DAMAN CO.OP.HSG. SOCIETY 6-1-92 5 EMPLOYEES DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY CA 16-4-92 3.2 FURTHER STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA)LTD DID NOT HONOR THIS AGREEMENT. A CIVIL SUIT THEREFORE, WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANTS AGAINST THE STRLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. ON 26-6-1992. THIS SUIT WAS PENDING BEFORE THE COURT. MEANWHILE STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD PROPOSED TO MAKE A LUMPSUM P AYMENT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BY WAY OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES ON A COMPROMI SE THROUGH A CONSENT ITA NO.2523 & 2544/AHD/2009 A.Y.2005-06 PLASTIC COLOR CORPN V. ITO WD-10(4) ABD PAGE 5 DECREE IN THE CIVIL COURT TO THE APPELLANTS. THE AM OUNT SO RECEIVED ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT IS CAPITAL RECEIPT SINCE THE AMOUN T IS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT IN LIEU OF ITS GIVING UP OF A RIGHT TO SUE WHICH IS THE INTRINSIC VALUE OF THE PENDING SUIT BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT. THE APPELLANT ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURT IN THE CASE OF I) TRAVANCORE RUBBER & TEA CO. LTD. 243 ITR 158 (SC ) II) SAURASHTRA CEMENT & CHEMICALS IND LTD 243 ITR 3 73 (GUJ) III) 233 ITR 335 (MAD) E.I.D. PARRY LTD. IV) 149 ITR 215 (DEL) J DALMIA V) 158 ITR 636 (GUJ) BARODA CEMENT & CHEMICALS LTD. 3.3 A SPECIFIC QUERY WAS RAISED REGARDING THE TREAT MENT OF EXPENDITURES INCURRED FOR HONORING THE CONTRACT OF SALE OF THE F IXED ASSETS BY THE APPELLANTS. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE BROUGHT TO MY NOTICE THE NOTE FORMING PART OF THE ACCOUNT. IN PARA 2(A) OF THE NOTE FORMING PART OF THE ACCOUNTS TO THE BALANCE SHEET OF M/S. PLASTIC COLOR CORPN FOR A Y 2 005-06, THE FOLLOWING IS MENTIONED:- 2.(A) THE FIRM HAD ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH A PARTY FOR THE SALE OF ITS ASSES (VIZ LAND, BUILDING & MACHINERIES). THE PARTY DID N OT HONOR THE CONTRACT AND FIRM HAD FILED SUIT FOR BREACH OF TRUST AND CONTRAC T. DURING THE YEAR A SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED AND THE FIRM RECEIVED LUMPSUM PAYM ENT OF RS.40,66,102/- TOWARDS BREACH OF TRUST AND CONTRACT BY WAY OF LIQU IDATED DAMAGED ON ACCOUNT OF COMPROMISE THROUGH A CONSENT DECREE IN THE CIVIL COURT. THE EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.4,16,530/- INCURRED IN THE COURSE OF NEGOTIATIONS, CONTRACT SIGNING AND FILING OF SUIT I.E. SHOWN UNDE R THE HEAD LOANS AND ADVANCES; IN EARLIER YEARS HAS BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINS T THE ABOVE REFERRED AMOUNT. 2(B) THE FIRM HAS BEEN LEGALLY ADVISED THAT THE AMO UNT RECEIVED TOWARDS BREACH OF TRUST AND CONTRACT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IS NOT LIABLE TO INCOME TAX AS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN LIEU OF ITS GIVING UP OF A RIGHT TO SUE IS NOT A REVENUE RECEIPT. THE SAME IS ALSO NOT EXIGIBLE TO CAPITAL G AINS SINCE THE AMOUNT IS RECEIVED IN LIEU OF RIGHT TO SUE WHICH IS FOREGONE BY THE FIRM AND THEE IS NO TRANSFER OF THE SAME 3.4 IN OTHER WORDS, THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE S ALE OF THE FIXED ASSETS BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT SHOWN AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE BUT AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THE AMOUNTS ARE NO DOUBT RECEIVED AS L IQUIDATED DAMAGED BY THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT, THE SAME ARE HELD AS CAPITAL RECEIPTS. BUT THIS AMOUNT PARTA KES THE CHARACTER OF ADVANCES OR OTHER MONEYS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC TION 51 OF THE I T ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO COMP UTE THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THESE ASSETS AFTER DEDUCTING THE AMOUNTS OF RS.3 5,29,322/- IN THE CASE OF PLASTIC COLOR CORP. AND RS.13,48,751/- IN THE CASE OF PLOYMER ALLOYS FROM THE COST FOR WHICH THE ASST WAS ACQUIRED OR THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OR THE FAIR MARKET VALUE, AS THE CASE MAY BE IN VIEW OF THE SPE CIFIC PROVISION OF SEC 5 OF THE ACT AT THE TIME OF FINAL SALE OF THESE ASSETS ITA NO.2523 & 2544/AHD/2009 A.Y.2005-06 PLASTIC COLOR CORPN V. ITO WD-10(4) ABD PAGE 6 4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ORDER OF L D. CIT(A) AND PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT LIQUIDATED OF RS.35,29,322/- HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAD NATURE OF CAPITAL RECEIPT WHICH HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) BY CONSIDERING THE VARIO US DECISIONS AT PAGE -18 OF HIS ORDER AFTER DISCUSSING THE FACTUAL POSITION OF THE RECEIPTS, WHICH WAS RECEIVED FORBIDDING THE RIGHT TO SUE. ANY RECEIPT F OR NOT SUING IS CAPITAL RECEIPT, AS THIS AMOUNT PARTAKES OF THE CHARACTER OF ADVANCE OR OTHER MONEYS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 51 OF THE ACT WHICH IS TO BE REDUCED FROM THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSETS ACQUIRED OR WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OR THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS THE CASE MAY BE IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 51 OF THE ACT AT THE TIME OF FINAL SALE OF THE ASSETS. TH US, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. HENCE, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. NOW COMING TO ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THIS RECEIPTS IS CAPITAL NATURE AND SAME HAS TO BE REDUCED FROM THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSE TS ACQUIRED WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OR THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WAS DIRECTED TO APPLY SECTION 51 OF THE ACT AT THE TIME OF FINAL SALE OF THE SAID ASSET. 7. ANOTHER SIDE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CH ALLENGED THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN U/S 251 OF THE ACT. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. SR-DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND ARGUED THAT THE ACTI ON OF THE AO MAY BE CONFIRMED. 9. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW A ND PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THESE RECEIPTS ARE CAPITAL RECEIPT AS HELD BY THE VARIOUS COURTS WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY TH E ASSESSEE ITSELF IN ITS ITA NO.2523 & 2544/AHD/2009 A.Y.2005-06 PLASTIC COLOR CORPN V. ITO WD-10(4) ABD PAGE 7 RETURN BUT SAME IS NOT EXEMPTED AND IT HAS TO BE RE DUCED FROM THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSETS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS VAST POWER AS HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT V MCMILLAN & CO. (1958) 33 ITR 182 (SC); CIT V. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); AND CIT V. HARDUTROY MOTILAL CHAMARIA (RAI BAHADUR) (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) THAT IN DISPOSING OF APPEAL BEFORE HIM THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CAN TRAVEL OVER THE WHOLE RANGE OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER. HE CAN BRING IN FOR ASSESSMENTS SOURCES WHICH HAVE BEEN CO NSIDERED OR PROCESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN THOUGH, THE OFFICER M AY HAVE FAILED TO BRING THEM TO TAX. IN OTHER WORDS, THE POWERS, OF THE APP ELLATE AUTHORITY IN DISPOSING OF AN APPEAL ARE VERY WIDE AND PLENARY. IT IS OPEN TO HIM TO CONSIDER EVERY ASPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND GIVEN APPROPRIAT E RELIEF OR DIRECTION. THUS, WE UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND ASSESSEES AP PEAL IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 11. IN COMBINE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE AND THAT OF AS SESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( G.C.GUPTA ) ( T.R. MEENA ) (VICE PRESIDENT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) %&'- 15/05/2012 ) * DKP* $ $ $ $ ++, ++, ++, ++, -,' -,' -,' -,' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. &&+2 3 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 3- / CIT (A) 5. ,67 +++2, +2#, ) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 7:; <= / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ $ , /TRUE COPY/ >/) & +2#, ) *