ACIT, Chandigarh V. M/s Green Field Enterprises, Chandigarh

ITA 266/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8966 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 16-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSHIL KUMARCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY JAINCA
• Keywords: Capital receipt
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 266/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 THE ACIT, VS M/S GREEN FIELD ENTERPRISES, CIRCLE 5(1), SCO 36, 1 ST FLOOR, SECTOR 26, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAGFG6666C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR,CIT -DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AJAY JAIN,CA DATE OF HEARING : 16.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.11.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-2 CHANDIGARH DATED 22.01.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012. 2. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL ARE REGARDING DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,62,11,136/- WHICH WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 45,12,173/- WHI CH 2 WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY DENYING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. ON THE FIRST ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT ON EXCISE DUTY REFUND OF RS. 1,62,11,136/- BY TREATING THE EXCISE DUTY REFUN D AS REVENUE RECEIPT INSTEAD OF CAPITAL RECEIPTS, IT IS NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCT ION OF RS. 1.62 CR UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT ON EXC ISE DUTY REFUND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER QUESTIONED THE ASSESSEE REGARDING SAID CLAIM AND ASSESSEE HAD FILE D REPLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED THE CLA IM OF ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT EXCISE DUTY REFUND IS N OT PROFIT DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY BY APPLYING THE RATIO OF DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY SHOES 293 ITR 478. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT IS ALLOWABL E ON EXCISE DUTY REFUND IN VIEW OF DECISION OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S SHIVALIK AGRO CHEMICALS DATED 20.12.2011 IN ITA NO. 968/CHD/2010. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT HIS PREDECESSOR, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 VID E ORDER DATED 05.11.2012 DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S SHIVALIK AGRO CHEMICALS (SUPRA). THE TRIBUN AL, IN THIS CASE HAS HELD THAT EXCISE DUTY REFUND 3 IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT AND SO, IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE INCOME. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ACCORDINGLY, DELETED THE ADDITION. 4. AS REGARDS THE SECOND ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE UNDE R SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT ON THE REBATE AND DISCOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE SUPPLIERS OF RS. 45,12,173/-, IT IS NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIM ED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB ON REBATE AND DISCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS. 45,12,173/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R DID NOT ALLOW DEDUCTION ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS N OT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE TO EARN REBATE AND DISCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT REBATE AND DISCOUNT RECEIVED BY T HE ASSESSEE WAS OF MATERIAL PURCHASED WHICH WAS SHOWN SEPARATELY WITHOUT DEDUCTING THE SAME FROM THE BILL S. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE AMOUNT WAS DEDUCTED FROM THE PURCHASES AND WAS SHOWN SEPARATELY ON THE CREDIT SIDE OF THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND SINCE THE CREDITS RELATE TO MATERIAL PURCHASED, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE AC T. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE PREDECESSOR OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB OF THE ACT ON THE SIMILAR NATURE OF REBATE AND DISC OUNT IN ASSESSEE'S CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 5. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT THE IMPUGNED REBATE AND DISCOUNT RELATE TO PURCHASE OF MATERIALS . 4 THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED THIS AMOUNT FROM THE PURCHASES BUT HAS SHOWN SEPARATELY IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. SINCE IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-1 1, LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE SIMILAR ADDITION, THEREFORE, ADDITION WAS DELETED. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE ISSUES HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN I TA 971/2013 DATED 02.05.2016, WHEREBY IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY DISMISSING DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. THE COPY OF THE OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS FILED ON RECORD AND SUPPLIED TO THE LD. DR AS WELL. THE FINDINGS IN PARAS 4 TO 11 OF THIS ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 4. ON GROUND NO. 2, REVENUE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN HOLDING THAT EXCIS E DUTY REFUND OF RS. 1,39,00,952/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE CONSTITUTED A CAPITAL RECEIPT NOT LIABLE T O TAX. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS. 1,39,00,952/- UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT ON EXCISE DUTY RECEIVED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER QUESTIONED THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE SAID CLAIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISALLOWED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT ON EXCISE DUTY RECEIVED. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE 5 SUBMITTED THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB IS ALLOWABLE ON EXCISE DUTY RECEIVED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S SHIVALIK AGRO CHEMICALS VIDE ORDER DATED 20.12.2011 IN ITA 968/CHD/2010. 5(I) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 VIDE ORDER DATED 05.11.2012. SIMILAR ADDITION DELETED BY HIM BY FOLLOWING DECISION OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S SHIVALIK AGRO CHEMICALS (SUPRA), ACCORDINGLY, DELETED THE ADDITION. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE REVENUE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA 147/2013 AND DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL ON THE SAME ISSUE HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. FINDINGS IN PARA 8 TO 10 OF THE ORDER DATED 06.04.2016 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED BY US IS WHETHER THE EXCISE DUTY REFUND CAN BE TREATED AS INCOME DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. ON PERUSAL OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MEGHALAYA STEELS LTD. (SUPRA), WE SEE THAT THE SAME ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN FOLLOWING TERMS : 17. INSOFAR AS THE SECOND QUESTION IS CONCERNED, THE CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY REFUND CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON THE BASIS OF 6 EXEMPTION NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) BEING NOTIFICATION NO. 32 OF 1999 AND NOTIFICATION NO. 33 OF 1999, BOTH DT. 8TH JULY, 1999. IN TERMS OF THESE NOTIFICATIONS, A MANUFACTURER IS REQUIRED TO FIRST PAY THE CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY AND THEREAFTER CLAIM A REFUND ON FULFILMENT OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS. IN THE NEXT MONTH, AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE CLAIM, THE CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY SO DEPOSITED IS REFUNDED TO THE ASSESSEE IF THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE NOTIFICATIONS ARE FULFILLED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY REFUND. 18. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS IN ITS CIRCULAR DT. 19TH DEC., 2002 CLARIFIED THAT THE REFUND IS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY BUT IS BASICALLY DESIGNED TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE EXEMPTION AND TO OPERATIONALISE THE EXEMPTION GIVEN BY THE NOTIFICATIONS. IN THAT SENSE, THE CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY REFUND DOES NOT APPEAR TO BEAR THE CHARACTER OF INCOME SINCE WHAT IS REFUNDED TO THE ASSESSEE IS THE AMOUNT PAID UNDER THE MODALITIES PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE FOR GIVING EFFECT TO THE EXEMPTION NOTIFICATIONS. THERE IS ALSO NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECOVERED OR PASSED ON THE EXCISE DUTY ELEMENT TO ITS CUSTOMERS. EVEN ASSUMING THE REFUND DOES AMOUNT TO INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS A PROFIT OR GAIN DIRECTLY DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY. THE PAYMENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY HAS A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND SIMILARLY, THE REFUND 7 OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY ALSO HAS A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. THE ISSUE OF PAYMENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY WOULD NOT ARISE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY. THERE IS, THEREFORE, AN INEXTRICABLE LINK BETWEEN THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY, THE PAYMENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY AND ITS REFUND. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT QUESTION NO. 2 MUST BE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 9. SINCE WE OBSERVE THAT THE ISSUE IN QUESTION BEFORE THE HON'BLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT WAS EXACTLY SAME, WHICH IS THERE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. 10. BEFORE PARTING, WE WANT TO ADD THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MEGHALAYA STEELS LTD. (SUPRA), COPY OF WHICH WAS PROVIDED TO US BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, STATING THAT THE ISSUE OF EXCISE DUTY REFUND HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS JUDGMENT ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MEGHALAYA STEELS LTD. (SUPRA). WE OBSERVE THAT IN THIS CASE BEFORE THE HON'BLE APEX COURT, THE ONLY ISSUE DECIDED WAS IN RESPECT OF THE ALLOWABILITY OF TRANSPORT SUBSIDY, INTEREST SUBSIDY AND POWER SUBSIDY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT AND NOT THAT OF EXCISE DUTY REFUND. THOUGH NO HELP OF THE SAID JUDGMENT CAN BE TAKEN IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THIS ALSO GOES TO SHOW THAT THE DECISION OF THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT WITH REGARD TO THE EXCISE DUTY REFUND HAS BECOME FINAL. 8 11. THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. 7. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN WHICH THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETED SIMILAR ADDITION VIDE ORDER DATED 05.11.2012 AND HIS ORDER HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 06.04.2016. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SAME ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 8. ON GROUND NO. 3, REVENUE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN HOLDING THAT ADDITION OF RS. 37,66,509/- ON ACCOUNT OF REBATE AND DISCOUNT RELATES TO PURCHASE OF MATERIAL WHICH WAS SHOWN ON THE CREDIT SIDE OF THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 8(I) THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB ON REBATE AND DISCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS. 37,66,509/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE TO EARN REBATE AND DISCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT REBATE AND DISCOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ON MATERIAL PURCHASES WHICH WAS SHOWN SEPARATELY WITHOUT DEDUCTING THE SAME FROM THE BILL. ACCORDING TO HIM, AMOUNT WAS DEDUCTED FROM THE PURCHASES AND WAS SHOWN SEPARATELY ON THE CREDIT SIDE OF THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND SINCE CREDITS RELATE TO 9 MATERIAL PURCHASES, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT THE PREDECESSOR OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB ON SIMILAR NATURE OF REBATE AND DISCOUNT IN THE CASE O F SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 9. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT IMPUGNED REBATE AND DISCOUNT RELATES TO PURCHASE OF MATERIAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED THIS AMOUNT FROM THE PURCHASES BUT HAS SHOWN IT SEPARATELY ON CREDIT SIDE OF THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. SIMILARLY, DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT ON REBATE AND DISCOUNT WAS ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN THE CASE OF SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE M/S INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT CO. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 VIDE ORDER DATED 10.09.2007 AND THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR, LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT CO. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN ITA 938/09 DISMISSED THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL VIDE ORDER DATED 15.10.2009, COPY OF THE SAME IS PLACED ON RECORD. HE HAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT CO. (SUPRA) IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DATED 10.07.2009 FOLLOWED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS). NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. 10 CIT(APPEALS) HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL HAS NO MERIT. THE SAME IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. IT IS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE ISSUES AR E COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 6(I) ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR DID NOT DISPUTE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 02.05.2016, HOWEVER, HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE ADD ITION BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S SHIVALIK AGRO CHEMICALS (SUPRA) ON THE ISSUE OF EXCISE DUTY REFUND AND THE TRIBUNAL IN THA T CASE HAS FOLLOWED DECISION OF J & K HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF M/S SHREE BALAJI ALLOYS & OTHERS. HE HAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT SAID DECISION IS DISTINGUISHABLE. 7. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE AR E OF THE VIEW BOTH THE ISSUES HAVE ALREADY BEE ADJUDI CATED BY ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF SAME ASSESS EE IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 VIDE ORDER DAT ED 02.05.2016 IN WHICH DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 02.05.2 016 HAS ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED ABOVE WHICH SHOWS THAT BOTH THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN THE LIGHT OF O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE WI TH REGARD TO EXCISE DUTY REFUND. THE CONTENTION OF LD . DR 11 IS WITH REGARD TO MATTER DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S SHIVALIK AGRO CHEMICALS (SUPRA) IN WHIC H MATTER, THE APPEAL HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED AND SUC H AN ISSUE CANNOT BE TAKEN UP IN THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE. BOTH THE GROUNDS ARE, THEREFORE, COVERED BY ORDER O F ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSES SEE FOR PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 DATED 02.05.2016. THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL, THUS, IS FULL Y COVERED BY THIS ORDER. FOLLOWING THE REASONS FOR DECISION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- ( ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SA INI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22 ND NOVEMBER,2016. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD