DCIT-6, Kanpur V. M/S A.R.Polymers p Ltd, Kanpur

ITA 262/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 26223714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O N PATHAK
• Assessee Lawyers: P K KAPOOR
• Keywords: Question of law; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 80IB; 37

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.262/LKW/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006 - 07 DY.C.I.T. - 6, KANPUR. VS. M/S A. R. POLYMERS PVT. LTD., 26/52, BIRHANA ROAD, KANPUR. PAN:AABCA2263P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI O. N. PATHAK, D. R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI P. K. KAPOOR, C.A. DATE OF HEARING 29/08/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 3 /09/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - II, KANPUR, DATED 15/02/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 2007. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB AGAINST THE INCOME DERIVED FROM NEW TENT UNIT WHICH HAS COMMENCED ITS PRODUCTION AFTER 31.03.2002. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (A) - I, KANPUR BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS DESERVES TO BE VACATED AND THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2 2. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PROVISION OF CLAUSE (II) OF SUB SECTION (3) OF SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT, DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE U/S 80IB IN RESPECT OF SSI UNIT IF IT BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE ARTICLES OR THINGS AT ANY TIME DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING ON THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL, 1995 AND ENDING ON 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2002. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING MANUFACTURING OF TENT WAS APPROVED BY DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE WITH EFFECT FROM 08/09/2004 AS PER AMENDED REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE AS SSI UNIT AVAI LABLE ON PAGE NO. 117 AND 118 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE SUBMITTED THAT HENCE , IT IS ADMITTED POSITION OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STARTED MANUFACTURING OF TENT IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2004 - 05 AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF T HE ACT IN RESPECT OF THIS ACTIVITY. 3. AS AGAINST THIS, LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: ( I ) INDO RAMA SYNTHETICS INDIA LTD. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX [2011] 333 ITR 18 (DEL) ( II ) CIT VS. HINDUSTAN PENCILS LTD. [2012] 74 DTR (BOM) 343 ( III ) B.R. LTD. VS GUPTA (V.P.), CIT [1978] 113 ITR 647 (SC) ( IV ) PRODUCE EXCHANGE CORPORATION LTD. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX [1970] 77 ITR 739 (SC) ( V ) PREM SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS CO. LTD. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX [1975] 98 ITR 20 (ALL) ( VI ) STATE OF GUJARAT VS SAURASHTRA CEMENT AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. [2003] 260 ITR 181 (SC) ( VII ) SHEKHAWATI ART PALACE VS. ACIT [2008] 8 DTR 322 ( VIII ) SETABGANJ SUGAR MILLS LTD. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX [1961] 41 ITR 272 (SC) ( IX ) CHHABDA AND SONS (L.M.) VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX [1967] 75 ITR 638 (SC) 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT AS PER THE COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUE BY DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE TO THE 3 ASSESSEE FOR REG ISTRATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS SSI UNIT AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 117 AND 118, IT IS SEEN THAT INITIALLY , THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING MANUFACTURING OF TENT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF ITEMS TO BE MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE REGISTRATIO N CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE ON 12/02/2001. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON 08/09/2004 , THIS ACTIVITY REGARDING MANUFACTURING OF TENT WAS ADDED IN THE LIST OF ITEMS TO BE MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT , AS PER LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESS EE TO THE DY. COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, LAKHANPUR, KANPUR, AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 118 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IT IS SEEN THAT ON 18/08/2004, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS COMMUNICATED TO THE DY. COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS GOING TO MANUFACTURE TENT EXTENDABLE AND IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE ADDED IN THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HENCE, THIS IS ALSO NOT A CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE STARTED MANUFACTURING OF TENT BEFORE 31/03/2002 WITHOUT O BTAINING ANY REGISTRATION BECAUSE EVEN ON 18/08/2004, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT S AYING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ALREADY MANUFACTURING TENT BUT IN FACT THE ASSESSEE IS SUBMITTING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS GOING TO MANUFACTURE TENT , WHICH MEANS THAT AFTER THIS DATE , THE AS SESSEE WILL START MANUFACTURING OF TENT. HENCE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THIS ASPECT THAT TILL 31/03/2002, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT START MANUFACTURING OF TENT AND AS PER CLAUSE (II) OF SUB SECTION (3) OF SECTION 80IB, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUC TION IF THE ASSESSEE BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE ARTICLES OR THINGS DURING ANY TIME DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING ON 1 ST DAY OF APRIL 1995 AND ENDING ON 31 ST DAY OF MARCH 2002. THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL WAS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION AS SSI UNIT ON 12/02/2001, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ANY ITEM PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN IF THE SAME IS ADDED IN THE LIST OF ITEMS TO BE MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THIS CER TIFICATE 4 ON A LATER DATE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, WHEN THE ITEMS TO BE MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS PER THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, DID NOT INCLUDE MANUFACTURING OF TENT TILL 08/09/2004, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEG U N MANUFACTURING OF TENT BEFORE THIS DATE. HENCE, AS PER THE PROVISION S OF CLAUSE (II) OF SUB SECTION (3) OF SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES REG ARDING MANUFACTURING OF TENT. 5. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE FACTUAL POSITION, WE NOW EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF VARIOUS JUDGMENT S CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. 5.1 THE FIRST JUDGMENT CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF INDO RAMA SYNTHETICS INDIA LTD. (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE, THE DISPUTE BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS THAT AS TO WHETHER THE AMOUNT SPENT ON EXPANSION OF PLANT, WHICH WAS ABANDONED IS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE ALLOWABLE U/S 37 OR NOT. HENCE, THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT RELEVANT IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DISPUTE IS ABOUT ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB . 5.2 THE NEXT JUDGMENT CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY H IGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN PENCILS LTD. (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE WAS THAT AS TO WHETHER INSTALLATION OF PLANT & MACHINERY ALONGSIDE THE EXISTING PLANT & MACHINERY IN THE SAME UNIT AT THE SAME TIME WITHOUT ANY CHANGE IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE OR BUSINESS SET UP, DEDUCTION U/S 80IA COULD BE DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SET UP A SEPARATE NEW UNIT. IN THAT CASE, THIS WAS NOT THE FACT THAT BY INSTALLING THE ADDITIONAL P LANT & MACHINERY , THE ASSESSEE STARTED TO PRO DUCE AND MANUFACTURE ALTOGETHER A DIFFERENT ITEM AS IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS PER THE 5 ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION AS SSI UNIT ISSUED BY DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE ON 12/02/2001, THE ASSESSEE WAS TO MANUFACTURE PLYWOOD, DECORATI VE, PARTICLES BOARD, BLACK BOARD, CHECKERED PLYWOOD, FLUSH DOOR, MEDIUM DECENT FIBRE BOARD AND SKID BOARD. WE FIND THAT EVEN THERE IS NO T EVEN DISTANT CORRELATION BETWEEN PRODUCTION OF THESE 7 ITEMS AND PRODUCTION OF TENT. THE PLANT & MACHINERY USED FOR THESE ITEMS CONNECTED WITH MANUFACTURING PLYWOOD CANNOT BE USED FOR MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCING TENT. HENCE, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE THE FACTS OF THE PRESE NT CASE ARE DIFFERENT BECAUSE IN THAT CASE , THE FINDING IS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE INSTALLED ADDITIONAL PLANT & MACHINERY DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THIS WAS TOGETHER WITH AND ALONGSIDE THE EXISTING PLANT & MACHINERY IN THE SAME UNIT FOR MANUFACTURING ITEMS OF SAME NATURE WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ITEMS ARE OF TOTALLY DIFFERENT NATURE. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 5.3 THE NEXT JUDGMENT CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF B.R. LTD. (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE BEFORE HON'BLE APEX COURT WAS REGARDING CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSS AND WHAT ARE THE DECISIVE TEST FOR DETERMINING SAME BUSINESS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 24(2) OF INDIAN INCOME TAX ACT, 1922. SINCE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE BEFORE HON'BLE APEX COURT WAS DIFFERENT, THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN T HE PRESENT CASE. 5.4 THE NEXT JUDGMENT CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF PRODUCE EXCHANGE 6 CORPORATION LTD. (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE ALSO , THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE WAS THE SAME I.E. REGARDING LOSS , CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF AND TO DETERMINE FOR THIS PURPOSE THE SAME BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 24(2) OF INDIAN INCOME TAX ACT, 1922. THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 5.5 THE NEXT JUDGMENT CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF PREM SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS CO. LTD. (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE , THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE WAS REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON BORROW ING FUNDS FOR STARTING STRAWBOARD FACTORY WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ALREADY RUNNING A SPINNING AND WEAVING FACTORY. IN THAT CASE , THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF INDIA CEMENTS LTD. VS. CIT [1966] 6 0 ITR 52 AND HELD BY FOLLOWING THIS JUDGMENT THAT THE ACT OF BORROWING MONEY WAS INCIDENTAL TO THE CARRYING ON OF THE BUSINESS, THE LOAN OBTAINED WAS NOT AN ASSET OR AN ADVANTAGE OF AN ENDURING NATURE AND THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE WAS MADE FOR SECURING THE USE OF MONEY FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD AND IT WAS IRRELEVANT TO CONSIDER THE OBJECT WITH WHICH THE LOAN WAS OBTAINED. THEREFORE, THIS JUDGMENT IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 5.6 THE NEXT JUDGMENT CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSE E IS THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SAURASHTRA CEMENT AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE, THE DISPUTE BEFORE THE HON'BLE APEX COURT WAS UNDER BOMBAY ELECTRICITY DUTY ACT, 1958. UNDER THIS ACT, EXEMPTION U/S 3(2 )(VII)(B) OF BOMBAY ELECTRICITY DUTY ACT, 1958 WAS ALLOWED TO A UNIT IF THE UNIT CAN BE DESCRIBED AS NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY INSTALLED A 7 MANUFACTURING PLANT IN THE YEAR 1960 WITH A CAPACITY OF PRODUCING 660 METRIC TON S OF CLINKER PER DAY AND THEREAFTER IN 1965, THE SAME COMPANY ADDED ONE MORE KILN AND INCREASED ITS PRODUCTION CAPACITY TO 1,000 METRIC TONS PER DAY. THEREAFTER, AGAIN IN 1969 THE PRODUCTION CAPACITY WAS INCREASED BY INSTALLING A UNIT KILN AND THE UNIT WA S USING EXISTING CAPACITY OF CRUSHERS, CRANES, PACKING MACHINES, COAL MILLS AND RAW MILLS. UNDER THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD IN THAT CASE THAT IT IS NOT A NEW UNIT AND THEREFORE, NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION. HENCE, WE FIND THAT IN THAT CASE, THE EXPANSION WAS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THE SAME ITEM WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ITEM NOW BEING PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT AND THEREFORE THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 5.7 THE NEXT JUDGMENT CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHEKHAWATI ART PALACE (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE, THERE WAS RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING BUSINESS BY WAY OF COMMENCEMENT OF NEW BUSINESS AFTER NEW POWER CONNECTION, CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACTORY BUILDING, INSTALLATION OF MACHINERY AND REGISTRATION BY DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE ON 22/06/2000 AND 18/08/2000 SHOWING COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION ON 07/04/2000 AND UNDER THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD THAT IT HAS BEEN PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD SET UP A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING UNIT AND IT WAS ENTITLED FOR 100% DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT WITH EFFECT FROM 07/04/2000 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE DEDUCTION TO 25% TREATING THE INITIAL YEAR QUA 3 RD JUNE, 1007 WHEN PROPRIE TARY CONCERN WAS CONVERTED INTO PARTNERSHIP. AS PER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE CONTINUED TO DERIVE INCOME FROM MANUFACTURIN G OF WOODEN AND IRON HANDICRAFT . IN FACT , THIS JUDGMENT IS RENDERING HELP TO THE REVENUE BECAUSE AS PER THIS JUDGMENT, IT WAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NEW UNIT BECAUSE OF NEW REGISTRATION AS SSI UNIT WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW IN THAT CASE THAT THERE WAS ONLY 8 EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING UNIT, WHICH WAS STARTED FROM 03/06/97. HENCE, THIS JUDGMENT IS ALSO NOT REND ERING ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE. 5.8 THE NEXT JUDGMENT CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SETABGANJ SUGAR MILLS LTD. (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE APEX COURT WAS THAT A S TO WHETHER A QUESTION REGARDING DIFFERENT VENTURES CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAME BUSINESS IS MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACTS. IT WAS HELD THAT NO DOUBT FINDINGS OF FACT ARE INVOLVED BUT THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION IS A LEGAL INFERENCE FROM PROVED FACTS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THIS ASPECT AS TO WHETHER THE QUESTION IS A LEGAL INFERENCE OR FACTUAL INFERENCE. THEREFORE, THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 5.9 THE NEXT JUDGMENT CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF L. M. CHHABDA AND SONS (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE WAS AS TO WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED AFTER CLOSURE OF SEVERAL BUSINESS VENTURES IS ALLOWAB LE DEDUCTION OR NOT U/S 10(1) OF INDIAN INCOME TAX ACT, 1922. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DISPUTE IS DIFFERENT AND THEREFORE, THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 6. AS PER THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE HAVE SEEN THAT NONE OF THE JUDGMENTS CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS RENDERING ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE. WE HAVE ALSO SEEN THAT AS PER THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS STARTED PRODUCTI ON OF AL TOGETHER A NEW ITEM NOT CONNECTED WITH THE ITEMS, WHICH WAS BEING PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE EARLIER AND THE PRODUCTION OF THIS ITEM I.E. TENT WAS INCORPORATED IN THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE AS SSI UNIT BY DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE FROM 08/09/2004 AND THEREFORE, AS PER CLAUSE (II) OF SUB SECTIO N (3) OF SECTION 9 80IB, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB WITH REGARD TO PRODUCTION OF TENT. WE, THEREFORE, REVERSE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 3 /09/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR