Asstt.C.I.T ,Amravati Circle,Amravati, Amaravati V. Bharat Rail Automation Pvt.Ltd, Amaravati

ITA 282/NAG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 101318 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA KANE
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 ITA NOS. 282,293,294, 333, 334/NAG/2013 & C.O. NO. 20/NAG/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.A. NOS. 282, 293 & 294/NAG/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2007 - 08, 2009 - 10& 2010 - 11 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, BHARAT RAIL AUTOMATION PVT. LTD., AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI. VS. AMRAVATI. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. C.O. NO. 20/NAG/2013 (IN ITA NO. 282/NAG/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08. BHARAT RAIL AUTOMATION PVT.LTD., ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, AMRAVATI. VS. AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI. CROSS OBJECTOR. RESPONDENT. I.T.A. NOS.333 & 334/NAG/2013 ASSESSMENTS YEARS : 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11. BHARAT RAIL AUTOMATION PVT.LTD., ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, AMRAVATI. VS. AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI NARENDRA KANE. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.P. DEWANI. DATE OF HEAR ING : 04 - 11 - 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 TH DEC. , 2015 O R D E R PER MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, J.M. IN ALL THERE ARE FIVE APPEALS AND ONE CROSS OBJECTION BEFORE US ARISING FROM THE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), NAGPUR. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AND THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CROSS OBJECTION. 2 ITA NOS. 282,293,294, 333, 334/NAG/2013 & C.O. NO. 20/NAG/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11, CROSS APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED. THE LEAD YEAR IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DEVELOPER AND CARRIED OUT INFRASTRUCTURE WORK, WHEREAS IT IS A MERE CONTRACTOR CARRYING OUT THE CONTRACTS RELA TED TO CIVIL AND SIGNALLING WORK OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS OF INDIAN RAILWAY. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING HAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT, WHEREAS AS PER EXPLANATION TO SECTION U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE BUSINESS REFERRED TO SUB - SECTION (4) WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF WORKS CONTRACT AWARDED BY ANY PERSON INCLUDING THE CENT RAL OR STATE GOVT. AND EXECUTED BY THE UNDERTAKING ENTERPRISES. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 ARE REPRODUCED BELOW,( VIDE ITA NO. 333/NAG/2013, BEING A LEAD YEAR) : 1. THAT KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE LE ARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) AT RS.2,42,78,441/ - , AS PER MODIFIED GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHEREIN THE CLAIM U/S 80IA(4) WAS PRESSED ON THE ENTIRE TURNOVER OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY INCLUDING THE TURNOVER WITH RVNL . THAT THE CLAIM U/S 80IA(4) IS A STATUTORY ALLOWANCE AS ASSESSEE FULFILS ALL THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR ALLOWING CLAIM. 2. THAT IT BE HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE CLAIM U/S 80IA(4) AT RS.2,42,78,441/ - . 3. THAT IT BE HELD THAT CLAIM U/S 80IA(4) IS ALL OWABLE ON THE INCOME EARNED FROM RAILWAY CONTRACT AS WELL AS ON INTEREST INCOME AND OTHER RECEIPTS AS THESE RECEIPTS PERTAINS TO RAILWAY INFRASTRUCTURE ACTIVITY, WHICH IS BEING CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THAT SUITABLE DIRECTIONS BE GIVEN FOR CONSIDERING ALL THE TDS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN ON THE BASIS OF TDS CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY RAILWAY DEPARTMENT AND TO ALLOW THE SAME. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 ARE REPRODUCED BELOW : 3 ITA NOS. 282,293,294, 333, 334/NAG/2013 & C.O. NO. 20/NAG/2013 1. THAT KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) AT RS.1.33 CRORES AS CLAIMED IN THE SECOND REVISED RETURN. THAT THE CLAIM U/S 80IA(4) IS A STATUTORY ALLOWANCE AND AS ASSESSEE FULFILS ALL THE CONDITIONS REQUIRE D FOR ALLOWING CLAIM, IT WILL NOT BE PROPER AND JUSTIFIABLE TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM AS PER THE 2 ND REVISED RETURN, SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF WITHDRAWAL OF SUCH CLAIM IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. THAT IT BE HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE CLA IM U/S 80IA(4) AT RS.1.33 CRORES. 3. THAT IT BE HELD THAT CLAIM U/S 80IA(4) IS ALLOWABLE ON THE INCOME EARNED FROM RAILWAY CONTRACT AS WELL AS ON INTEREST INCOME AND OTHER RECEIPTS AS THESE RECEIPTS PERTAINS TO RAILWAY INFRASTRUCTURE ACTIVITY WHICH IS BEING C ARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THAT SUITABLE DIRECTIONS BE GIVEN FOR CONSIDERING ALL THE TDS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN ON THE BASIS OF TDS CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY RAILWAY DEPARTMENT AND TO ALLOW THE CLAIM. 3. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRES PONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) DATED 30 TH DEC., 2009 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN UNDERTAKING THE RAILWAY SIGNALLING CONTRACTS. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 THE TURNOVER WAS RS.33.45 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EARNED INCOME I N TRADING OF STEEL. HOWEVER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION, NET PROFIT WAS CALCULATED AT RS. 1,61,94,152/ - , CLAIMED TO BE PROFIT EARNED ON INFRASTRUCTURE ACTIVITY. BY WAY OF A REVISED RETURN THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED A DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF RS.1,33,00,000/ - . IN ACCORDANCE OF THE AUDIT REPORT ON FORM NO. 10CCB THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE OPERATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE ACTIVITY OF THE UNDERTAKING HAD STATED FROM 01 - 04 - 2004. THE CLAIM WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF THE DEVELO PMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF RAIL SYSTEM. AS PER THE SAID REPORT NO DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED IN ANY EARLIER YEARS. AS PER THE REPORT ON FORM 10CCB THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF 4 ITA NOS. 282,293,294, 333, 334/NAG/2013 & C.O. NO. 20/NAG/2013 RS.1,45,00,669/ - , HOWEVER, IT WAS RESTRICTED TO RS.1,33,00,000/ - AS PER THE REVISED RETURN. THE AO HAS OBJECTED THE SAID CLAIM BY ISSUING A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, ASSIGNING THE REASONS THAT WHY NO DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED IN EARLIER YEARS AND THAT THE CLAIM WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF ITAT, MUMBAI PRONOUNCED IN TH E CASE OF B.T. PATIL & SONS. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO WAS AS UNDER : RAILWAY SIGNALLING WORK IS AN INTEGRAI'ED PART OF RAIL SYSTEM AND IT IS A VITAL ORGAN TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF THE RAI/WAY. ASSESSEE INVOLVED IN CARRYIRRG ON SIGNALLING WORK. THIS ITWOTVES' COMPLETE DESIGNING OF THE SAID PROJECT SO THAT THE RAI/WAY MOVEMENT CAN BE FUNCTIONED S,!STERNOI'.'CAIIY AND SMOOTHLY. AS ALREADY SUBMITTED SIGNALLING WORK IS HIGHLY SENSITIVE, DELICATE & TNOST TECTVVCO! AND VITAL ORGAN OF THE RAILWAY SYSTEM, WHICH IS BEING REQUIRED TO BE DESIGNED AND OEVEIOOEO BY THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE GE1S ONLY INTERLOCKING PLAN 'OF THE SITE AND THEREAFTER ALL THE IND80R CNO OUTDOOR WORKING SYSTEM IS REQUIRED TO BE PLANNEEL .. DESIGRJED & DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE AT HIS OWN AND ALSO TO MAINTAIN THE SAID SYSTEM - IO: A PARTICULAR PERIOD AS MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT. ALL THESE WORK OF DEVELOPING & MAINTAINING IS BEI'1G CARRIED OF! AS PER THE AGREEMENT. ASSESSEE IS RESPONSIBLE / LIABLE FOR THE LOSS OR THE DAMAGE DUE TO FAULT IN THE DEVELOPING SVSTERN AND IT SHOULDERS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO GIVE & PROVIDE SMOOTH & CONVENIENT SIGNALLING SYSTEM. FOR EASY AND HURDELLESS MOVEMENT OF THE RAILWAY. THE ENTIRE SYSTEM AT TH.E OOAICCNCR SITE OF SIGNALLING WORK IS REQUIRED TO BE DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE AT ITS OWN AND COMPANY (THE ENTERPRISE) DEVO<;LOPS THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY AND MAINTAINED / GUARANTEED DURING WO: - RONTY OETIOC, BY IT. AFTER DEV910PING THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY THE SAME I S HANDED OVER TO THE RAI/WOY DEPARTMENT AS PER THE TERMS AT THE OGREEMENT. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON PATEL ENGINEERING LTD. 84 TTJ 646 (MUM.), OM METAL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 26 DTR 359 (JP) AND BHARAT UDYOG LTD. 23 DTR 433 (MUM.). ON THE OTHER HAND THE A.O. HAD PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF B.T.PATIL & SONS ( ITA 1408 & 1409/PN/2003) ORDER DATED 26/10/2009. 4. THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED FOR RAILWAY VIKAS NIGAM (RVNL), DMRC AND VARIOUS OTHER R AILWAY AUTHORITIES SIMPLY TO EXECUTE A WORK CONTRACT. ACCORDING TO THE AO IN THE CASE OF RVNL THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT TO SUPPLY AND INSTALL RAILWAY SIGNAL. THE ASSESSEE WAS, THEREFORE, ENGAGED TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT RELATED TO RAILWAY SIG NALLING. THE CLAIM IN RESPECT OF PROFIT EARNED ON CONTRACTS EXECUTED 5 ITA NOS. 282,293,294, 333, 334/NAG/2013 & C.O. NO. 20/NAG/2013 FOR RVNL AND DMRC HAVE ALREADY WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE REASONING FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE CLAIM WAS THAT BOTH RVNL AND DMRC DO NOT QUALIFY AS CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR STATE GOVERNMENT OR LOCAL AUTHORITY AS ENVISAGED IN SUB - CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 80IA(4)(I) OF I.T. ACT. THE AO HAS RAISED MAINLY THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIONS : I) THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS AWARDED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. THE CONTRACTS ARE ESSENTIAL WORK CONTRACT. THEY INVOLVE SUPPLY OF MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION / ERECTION AT THE PREMISES OF THE CONTRACTEE, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CONTRACTEE. THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SIGNALLING SYSTEMS TO BE SUPPLIE D ARE DETERMINED BY THE RAILWAY ITSELF. THE ASSESSEE IS BOUND TO SOURCE MATERIAL FROM RDSO / DOT APPROVED VENDORS. THE SUPPLIED MATERIAL LIABLE FOR INSPECTION OF RDSO, RITES, THE RAILWAYS ETC. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT INVOLVED IN THE ENTIRE CONTRACT AS FAR AS ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED. ASSESSEE IS MERELY EXECUTING WORK AS PER SPECIFICATIONS FROZEN BY THE INDIAN RAILWAYS. THUS, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CALLED A DEVELOPER AS REQUIRED FOR AVAILING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4)(I). II) THE EXPLANATION O F SECTION 80IA SUBSTITUTED BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009 W.E.F. 01 - 04 - 2000 IS ALREADY REPRODUCED. THIS HAS CLARIFIED THE MATTER BEYOND DOUBT THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) IS NOT AVAILABLE TO A BUSINESS IN THE NATURE OF WORK CONTRACT AWARDED BY EVEN A CENTRAL GO VERNMENT. 4.1 THE AO HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE NEWLY INSERTED EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80IA(13) BY FINANCE ACT, 2007. THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT THE SAID EXPLANATION WAS LATER ON SUBSTITUTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2009 WHICH WAS RETROSPECTIVELY EFFECTIVE FROM 01 - 04 - 2000. THE AO HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE WORK ASSIGNED TO THE ASSESSEE WAS RELATED TO REPLACEMENT AND UPGRADATION OF THE EXISTING RAILWAY SYSTEM. IT WAS NOT IN THE NATURE OF DEVELOPMENT OF ANY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY. A WORK WAS GIVEN FOR EXECUTION OF INSTALLATION OF SIGNALLING SYSTEM AT RAILWAY TRACKS, HENCE THE AO HAS FINALLY DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IA(4 ) OF RS.1,33,00,000/ - FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 & A.Y. 2010 - 11 THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 80IA(4) WAS RS. 1,64,13,848/ - & RS. 1,36,58,775/ - RESPECTIVELY. 6 ITA NOS. 282,293,294, 333, 334/NAG/2013 & C.O. NO. 20/NAG/2013 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ISSUE WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). 6. AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DECISION OF M/S B.T. PATIL & SONS (SUPRA) AS DECIDED BY THE BOMBAY TRIBUNAL WAS NO MORE A GOOD LAW BECAUSE OF A DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DELIVERED ON 15 - 02 - 2010 IN THE CASE OF ABG HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. 322 ITR 323. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT IN THE CASE OF OM METAL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 26 DTR 359 (JP) IT WAS HELD THAT THE TERM CONTRACTOR IS NOT ESSENTIALLY IN CONTRADICTION TO THE TERM DEVELOPE R. ACCORDING TO HIM, MERELY BECAUSE IN THE AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY THE ASSESSEE WAS REFERRED AS A CONTRACTOR IT DID NOT DETRACT THE ASSESSEE FROM THE STATUS OF DEVELOPER. MERELY ON THAT GROUND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE DEB ARRED FROM CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF I.T. ACT. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS DISCUSSED THE NATURE OF WORK EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS MENTIONED THAT BOTH THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY ARE QUALIFIED ENGINEERS. THEY HAVE OBTAINED EXPERIENCE IN RAILWAY SIGNALLING WORK. THE WORK ASSIGNED TO THE ASSESSEE INVOLVED THE DESIGNING OF THE PROJECT. IT WAS A HIGHLY SENSITIVE AND TECHNICAL WORK WHICH WAS DEVELOPED AND DESIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ONE HAND AND THE RAILWA Y DEPARTMENT (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT) ON THE OTHER HAND TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT WITHIN CERTAIN SPECIFIED PARAMETERS. THERE WERE CERTAIN GUIDELINES AND SPECIFICATIONS AND THE SYSTEM DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO INSPECTED BY RDSO OF RAILWAY DEPARTMENT. IN THE BACKGROUND OF ABOVE FACTS, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS FINALLY HELD THAT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT PRONOUNCED IN THE CASE OF ABG HEAVY INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE I.T. A CT. THIS VIEW OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) GRANTING DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE IS NOW CHALLENGED BEFORE US. 7 ITA NOS. 282,293,294, 333, 334/NAG/2013 & C.O. NO. 20/NAG/2013 7. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LEARNED D.R. MR. NARENDRA KANE APPEARED AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND PLEADED THAT RVNL WAS THE MAIN ENTITY WHO HAS EXECUTED THE CONTRACT. THE SIGNALS WERE ALREADY AVAILABLE WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO BE FIXED AT THE SIDE OF THE RAIL LINES OR CROSSINGS. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DEVELOPING THE SAID INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY. THE CONTRACT WITH THE AUTHORITY WAS A ROU TINE CONTRACT WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS MENTIONED AS A CONTRACTOR. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MENTIONED AS A DEVELOPER. THE AO HAS EXAMINED THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT AND THEREAFTER RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED D.R., THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER DEVELOPED NOR MAINTAINED THE SIGNALLING SYSTEM. AFTER FIXING THE SYSTEM, THE ASSESSEE HAS HANDED OVER THE SAME TO DMRC, THEREFORE, NOT ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF THE I.T. ACT. HE HAS ALSO RAISED AN ANOTHER ARGUMENT THAT THE CONTRACT SIGNED WITH THE AUTHORITIES WERE NEITHER A CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, NOR A STATE GOVERNMENT OR EVEN A LOCAL AUTHORITY AS ENVISAGED IN THE SAID SECTION. HENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION. LEARNED D.R. HAS PLEADED THAT AFTER INSERTION OF EXPLA NATION TO SECTION 80IA THE ASSESSEE HAD FALLEN IN THE CATEGORY OF A CONTRACTOR. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE, LEARNED A.R. MR. K.P. DEWANI APPEARED AND PL EADED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY SINCE AY 2006 - 07. DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY NAMELY BHARAT DHABALIA AND BHUPESH DHABALIA BOTH OF WHOM ARE QUALIFIED ENGINEERS AND TECHNICAL PERSONS HAVING IMMENSE EXPERIENCE IN RAILWAY SIGNALLING WORK. R AILWAY SIGNALLING WORK IS IN ITSELF RAIL SYSTEM AND IT IS A VITAL ORGAN TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF THE RAILWAY. SIGNAL IN RAILWAY IS BACKBONE OF RAILWAY SYSTEM. ASSESSEE INVOLVED IN CARRYING ON SIGNALLING WORK. THIS INVOLVES COMPLETE DESIGNING OF THE SAID PROJECT SO THAT THE RAILWAY MOVEMENT CAN BE FUNCTIONED SYSTEMATICALLY AND SMOOTHLY. AS ALREADY SUBMITTED SIGNALLING WORK IS A HIGHLY 8 ITA NOS. 282,293,294, 333, 334/NAG/2013 & C.O. NO. 20/NAG/2013 SENSITIVE, DELICATE & MOST TECHNICAL AND VITAL ORGAN OF THE RAILWAY SYSTEM, WHICH IS BEING REQUIRED TO BE DESIGNED AND DEVE LOPED BY THE ASSESSEE. AFTER THE TENDER IS ACCEPTED BY THE RAILWAY, ASSESSEE GETS ONLY INTERLOCKING PLAN OF THE SITE AND INSPECTION OF THE SITE IS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER ALL THE INDOOR AND OUTDOOR WORKING SYSTEM IS REQUIRED TO BE PLANNE D, DESIGNED & DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE AT HIS OWN AND ALSO TO MAINTAIN THE SAID SYSTEM FOR A PARTICULAR PERIOD AS MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT. ALL THESE WORK OF DEVELOPING & MAINTAINING IS BEING CARRIED ON AS PER THE AGREEMENT. ASSESSEE IS RESPONSIBLE/ LIA BLE FOR THE LOSS OR THE DAMAGE DUE TO FAULT IN THE DEVELOPING SYSTEM AND IT SHOULDERS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO GIVE & PROVIDE SMOOTH & CONVENIENT SIGNALLING SYSTEM, FOR EACH AND HURDLELESS MOVEMENT OF THE RAILWAY. 9. THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND RAILWAY (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT) IS EXECUTED WITH CERTAIN PARAMETERS. THE AGREEMENT IS EXECUTED BY THE GOVERNMENT ONLY AFTER VERIFYING THE EXPERIENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND LIST OF TECHNICAL PERSONS AND ENGINEERS WHO WILL BE UNDERTAKING THE PROJECT AND THEN ONL Y THE WORK OF DEVELOPING THE PROJECT IS ENTRUSTED. ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVIDE LIST OF TECHNICAL PERSONS LIKE ENGINEERS WITH EXPERIENCE AS THE NATURE OF WORK IS HIGHLY TECHNICAL AND SKILLED ONE. THE PERSON DEVELOPING THE SYSTEM HAS TO PURCHASE THE MATERIAL / E QUIPMENTS TO BE USED IN THE PROJECTS ONLY FROM APPROVED VENDORS WHOSE LIST IS PROVIDED BY THE RAILWAY AND THE GOODS USED ARE UTILISED IN THE SYSTEM ARE BEING INSPECTED BY RAILWAY DEPARTMENT (RDSO/RITES) AT THE MANUFACTURERS PREMISES AND ALSO HAVE COMPLETE WATCH TILL THE GOODS ARE UTILIZED. THESE SPECIFICATIONS ARE ONLY TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF SIGNALLING WORK AS THIS ACTIVITY IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO SAFETY OF LAKHS OF PASSENGERS TRAVELLING DAILY BY RAILWAYS. THESE SPECIFICATIONS ARE PART OF ANY INFRASTRUCTU RE PROJECT AND ONLY REASON TO MENTION THIS IN TENDER IS TO GIVE THE NECESSARY PLATFORM FOR THE BIDDERS. BY WAY OF THIS INFORMATION BIDDERS CAN DO THEIR COSTING AND ACCORDINGLY BID FOR THE PROJECT. THAT THE PRICE AT WHICH 9 ITA NOS. 282,293,294, 333, 334/NAG/2013 & C.O. NO. 20/NAG/2013 RDSO APPROVED VENDOR SUPPLIES THE M ATERIAL IS HIGHER THAN THE NON - APPROVED VENDOR. SIGNALLING SYSTEM WAS DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, THERE WAS A TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT TO SOURCE THE MATERIAL FROM RDSO/DOT APPROVED VENDOR. THE DESIGNING OF THE PROJECT WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AS SESSEE. HENCE TO FULFIL THE SAID REQUIREMENT THE ASSESSEE HAS APPOINTED TECHNICAL PERSONS. AS PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FULFILLED THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS : I) NEED AND PROVIDING OF TECHNICAL PERSONS WITH THEIR NAMES, II) PROVIDING OF EMD/BANK GUARANTEE/INVESTMENT/SECURITY DEPOSIT/RETENTION MONEY AND ADVANCE TO THE SUPPLIER AND CONTRACTOR, III) RISK OF MAINTENANCE, IV) RISK OF DELAYED PAYMENT, V) MAINTENANCE CLAUSE AND CLAUSE OF GUARANTEE AND WARRANTY, VI) CLAUSE ABOUT DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITY AS A WH OLE, VII) CLAUSE ABOUT QUALITY AND QUANTITY, VIII) CLAUSE ABOUT COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND HANDLING OVER TO THE RAILWAY BESIDES DESIGNING OF PROJECT. A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING THE AGREEMENTS WITH SEVERAL AUTHORITIES HAVE ALSO BEEN PLACED ON RECORD IN THE FORM OF A PAPER BOOK. ONE OF THE SPECIFICATION IN THE AGREEMENT IS THAT THE SIGNAL SYSTEM WAS TO BE DESIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THE DESCRIPTION OF DESIGN THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH PANEL DIAGRAM AND THE SIGNALLING CIRCUIT ETC. AND AFTER APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN THEN SUPPLY OF THE SIGNALLING SYSTEM. THEREFORE, THE WORK ASSIGNED TO THE ASSESSEE WAS TO DESIGN THE PROJECT AND ON APPROVAL, INSTALL THE PROJECT AND COMMISSIONING OF THE PROJECT. HE HAS MENTIONED A DECISION OF ITAT, PUNE BENCH PRO NOUNCED IN THE CASE OF KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LTD. (ITA NO. 657 & 671/PN/2010 DATED 17 TH SEPT., 2014) WHEREIN THE ISSUE WAS IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 - IA IN RESPECT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY DEVELOPED FOR M/S SARDAR SAROVAR, NARMADA NIGAM L TD. HE HAS PLEADED THAT THE PROJECT WAS OWNED BY THE 10 ITA NOS. 282,293,294, 333, 334/NAG/2013 & C.O. NO. 20/NAG/2013 GOVERNMENT BUT THE WORK WAS AWARDED BY THE AUTHORITIES CONNECTED WITH THE SSNNL PROJECT. THEREFORE, AN AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH SSNNL PROJECT WAS NOTHING BUT THE STATUTORY BODY CONTROLLED BY THE GOVE RNMENT OF INDIA. FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE ACCOUNTS HAS ALSO BEEN FILED BEFORE US IN A SEPARATE COMPILATION. THE CASE LAWS REFERRED ARE AS UNDER : 1. CIT VS. ABG HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. & ORS. (2010) 322 ITR 323. 2. DEPUTY CIT VS. SELVEL ADVERTISING P. LTD. (2015) 37 ITR (TRIB) 611 (KOLKATTA). 3. DEPUTY CIT VS. VANTAGE ADVERTISING P. LTD. (2015) 39 ITR (TRIB) 240 (KOLKATTA). 4. B.T. PATIL & SONS BELGAUM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. VS. CIT (2013) 35 CCH 238. 5. GVPR ENGINEERS LTD. VS. ACIT (2012) 51 SOT 207 (HYD)(URO). 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AT SOME LENGTH. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US IN THE LIGHT OF FEW CASE LAWS CITED BY EITHER SIDES. AT THE OUTSET IT IS WORTH MENTIONING THAT THE AO HAS INITIATED THE PROCEEDING OF DISALLOWANCE BY MENTIONING A DECISION OF ITAT, MUMBAI PRONOUNCED IN THE CASE OF B.T. PATIL & SONS (ITA NOS. 1408 AND 1409/PN/2003 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000 - 01 AND 2001 - 02, ORDER DATED 26 - 10 - 2009). HOWEVER, THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE SAID DECISION WAS REVERSED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT PRONOUNCED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ABG HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. 322 ITR 323 (BOM). ACCORDING TO THE HONBLE COURT, CONDITION AS REGARDS TO DEVELOPMENT, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF AN INFRASTRUCT URE FACILITY WAS CONTEMPORANEOUSLY CONSTRUED BY THE AUTHORITIES AT ALL MATERIAL TIMES TO COVER WITHIN ITS PURVIEW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY UNDER SCHEME BY WHICH AN ENTERPRISE WOULD BUILT, OWN, LEASE AND EVENTUALLY TRANSFER THE FACILI TY. IT HAS ALSO BEEN EXPRESSED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE CUMULATIVE IN NATURE. AT THIS JUNCTURE IT IS ALSO WORTH TO MENTION THAT AS A SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT IN THE CASE OF B.T. PATIL & SONS, 11 ITA NOS. 282,293,294, 333, 334/NAG/2013 & C.O. NO. 20/NAG/2013 BELGAON CONSTRUCTION S P. LTD. 35 CCH 238, ITAT, PUNE BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 28 TH FEB., 2013 HAS MENTIONED THE PAST HISTORY OF THE SAID CASE THAT THE BACKGROUND WAS THAT VIDE AN ASSESSMENT ORDER THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(4) WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO, THEREFORE, THE MATTER WAS CARR IED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE ITAT. THE JUDICIAL MEMBER (INCIDENTALLY ONE OF US IN THIS ORDER), ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DID NOT ACCEPT. THEREUPON UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 255(4) THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE THIRD MEMBER. THE THIRD MEMBER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER OUGHT TO BE HEARD BY A LARGER BENCH. THE LARGER BENCH WAS CONSTITUTED AND AGREED WITH THE ACCOUN TANT MEMBER AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE MATTER WAS REFERRED BACK TO DIVISION BENCH TO GIVE EFFECT. WHILE THE SAID APPEAL WAS PENDING BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH TO GIVE THE EFFECT TO THE OPIN ION OF THE LARGER BENCH AND THERE WAS A DISMISSAL IN LIMINE OF THE APPEAL BECAUSE OF NON APPEARANCE. WHILE THAT MATTER WAS PENDING AND THE APPEAL OF THE SAID ASSESSEE WAS SUB - JUDICE; AN ORDER OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ABG HEAVY IN DUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) WAS PRONOUNCED. THE ITAT, PUNE, THEREFORE, HAS OPINED THAT THE SAID JURISDICTIONAL ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT WAS CONTRARY TO THE OPINION GIVEN BY THE THIRD MEMBER. MEANWHILE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE HONBLE BOMBAY HI GH COURT CAME UP FOR HEARING AND IN THE COURSE OF HEARING THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED TO GIVE DIRECTIONS TO THE TRIBUNAL TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF ABG HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. WHILE PASSING THE ORDER, HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAD KEPT ALL T HE CONTENTIONS OPENED AND FURTHER DIRECTED THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER THE DECISION OF ABG HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. THE ITAT, PUNE HAS THEREUPON HELD AS UNDER : 9. IT WAS FOUND BY THE ERSTWHILE JUDICIAL MEMBER THAT ASSESSEE FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS OF BEING A DEVELOPER AS SUBSEQUENTLY INTERPRETED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. WITH REGARD TO CLARIFICATORY 12 ITA NOS. 282,293,294, 333, 334/NAG/2013 & C.O. NO. 20/NAG/2013 AMENDMENT TO SUB - SECTION (13) OF SECTION 80IA BY FINANCE ACT 2007 & 2009 WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT HELD ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4A). IN THIS R EGARD, WE FIND THAT THE AMENDMENT OF 2007 DEBARS THE SUB - CONTRACTOR FROM AVAILING BENEFITS U/S 80IA(4A). THE AMENDMENT OF 2009 IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE EXECUTES THE WORK BY SHOULDERING INVESTMENT & TECHNICAL RISK BY EMPLOYING TEAM O F TECHNICALLY & ADMINISTRATIVELY QUALIFIED PERSONS AND IT IS LIABLE FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IF FAILED TO FULFIL THE OBLIGATIONS LAID DOWN IN THE AGREEMENT AND ALSO SECURING BY BANK GUARANTEE. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FULFILLED THE SAID CONDITIONS IS EVIDENT AS D ISCUSSED ABOVE. PRACTICALLY, THE OPINION OF THE THIRD MEMBER OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN OVERRULED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT THAT EVEN A CONTRACTOR IS A DEVELOPER AND FURTHER INTERPRETATION OF THE AMENDMENTS BY FINANCE ACT 2009 AND THE CONDITI ONS TO BE FULFILLED BY AN ASSESSEE TO BE TERMED AS DEVELOPER FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IA HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY VARIOUS TRIBUNALS. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT LAW AS INTERPRETED BY THE THIRD MEMBER OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IS NO LONGER GOOD LAW . MORE SPECIFICALLY IN LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COUR IN THE CASE OF ABG HEAVY INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND WHILE GIVING THE EFFECT AS PER PROVISIONS 255(4) DOF THE ACT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL WAS CLEARLY DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE SAI D DECISIONS AND ALLOW THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT FOR ALL THE PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 10.1 IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE REFERENCE TO THE DECISIONS TAKEN IN THE CASE OF B.T. PATIL & SONS AND THE PAST HISTORY OF THE FINAL SETTLEMENT OF T HIS LEGAL ISSUE , WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE RELIANCE AS PLACED BY THE AO IS NO MORE A GOOD LAW TO REJECT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF I.T. ACT. 11. NOW WE HAVE TO APPRECIATE THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE ISSUE IN HAND. AS FAR AS THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE CONCERNED, WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS HAVING DIRECTORS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES HAVING SUFFICIENT TECHNICAL QUALIFICATION ALONG WITH EXPERIENCE IN RAILWAY SIGNALLING WORK. THE COPIES OF THE CONTRACT PLACED ON RECORD HAVE ALSO REVEALED THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DESIGN THE SYSTEM AND ON APPROVAL BY THE RAILWAY AUTHORITIES, INSTALL THE SIGNALLING SYSTEM AT VARIOUS RAILWAY CROSSING ETC. AS WELL AS THE COMMISSIONING OF THE SAME IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS A CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMENTS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM WHICH WAS COMMISSIONED BY THE 13 ITA NOS. 282,293,294, 333, 334/NAG/2013 & C.O. NO. 20/NAG/2013 ASSESSEE. THERE WAS AN ELEMENT OF RISK INVOLVED AND THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE OR LOSS DUE TO FAULT IN THE SYSTEM INSTALLED. THE ASSESSEE WAS RESPONSIB LE FOR SMOOTH AND CONVENIENT OPERATION OF THE SIGNALLING SYSTEM SO AS TO PROVIDE HURDLE FREE MOVEMENT OF THE RAILWAY TRAFFIC. FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE WORKING OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF I.T. ACT AS UNDER: SR.NO. AY 2007 - 08 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 1] 2] 3] 4] 5] 6] 7] 8] GROSS TURNOVER NET PROFIT AS PER BOOKS TOTAL INCOME AS PER COMPUTATION OF INCOME PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL INCOME X T.O. INFRASTRUCTURE TURNOVER ELIGIBLE CLAIM U/S 80IA 80IA CLAIM IN ITR 80IA CLAIM MADE BEFORE CIT(A) AS PER AMENDED GROUNDS. 33,45,24,264/ - 1,68,88,260/ - 1,76,38,279/ - 5.27% 23,72,73,168/ - 1,25,04,300/ - 1,33,00,000/ - (2 ND REVISED ITR) 1,33,00,000/ - 58,64,75,316/ - 2,71,87,520/ - 2,69,77,354/ - 4.60% 52,77,92,197/ - 2,42,78,441/ - 1,64,13,848/ - 2,42,78,441/ - 41,85,72,977/ - 2,86,36,880/ - 2,87,40,103/ - 6.86% 38,20,06,673/ - 2,62,05,657/ - 1,78,76,992/ - 2,60,91,055/ - 14 ITA NOS. 282,293,294, 333, 334/NAG/2013 & C.O. NO. 20/NAG/2013 12. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN A SITUATION WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DEVELOPED AS WELL AS DESIGN OF THE RAILWAY SIGNALLING SYSTEM AND THEREUPON PROCURED THE MATERIAL AS PER THE SPECIFICATION OF THE RDSO / DOT HENCE THE BASIC CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. AFTER THE COMPLETION OF FABRICATION THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO ERECT AS WELL AS INSTALL THE SYSTEM AT SEVERAL DESIGNATED PLACES AS PER THE AGREEMENTS SIGNED WITH VARIOUS RAILWAY AUTHORITIES. FINALLY AFTER INSTALLATION THE COMMISSIONING HAS ALSO BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO EXECUTE THE COMPLETE CONDITION OF THE CONTRACT. AS EXPLAINED BEFO RE US THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT WAS TO BUILT AND TRANSFER THE SAID INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY TO THE RAILWAY DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, IT CAN BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED THE REQUIREMENT AS PRESCRIBED U/S 80IA(4) OF I.T. ACT. THERE WAS NOT ONLY A RISK BUT ALSO A REWARD INVOLVED IN THE SAID INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY WHICH WERE BUILT AND TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE INVOLVING TECHNICAL PERSONS AND SUBSTANTIAL FINANCE RAISED FROM BANK GUARANTEE ETC. THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED AND HANDED OVER TO THE RAILWA Y DEPARTMENT ALONG WITH THE DESIGNING OF THE PROJECT AS IS EVIDENT FROM SEVERAL CONTRACTS WHICH ARE PLACED ON RECORD. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS TAKEN A CORRECT VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 IA(4) OF I.T. ACT. 12.1 AS FAR AS THE PART RELIEF GIVEN BY LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS CONCERNED, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WAS INCORRECT IN TAKING A TECHNICAL VIEW THAT THE CLAIM WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE BEING MADE THROUGH A REVISED RETURN. IN TH IS REGARD THE LAW IS VERY WELL SETTLED THAT THE AO IS DUTY BOUND TO ALLOW AN ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THERE COULD BE A POSSIBILITY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COMPUTED A DEDUCTION CORRECTLY BUT THE AO IS UNDER JUDICIAL RESPONSI BILITY TO COMPUTE THE DEDUCTION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF 15 ITA NOS. 282,293,294, 333, 334/NAG/2013 & C.O. NO. 20/NAG/2013 THE LAW. AS A RESULT, WE HEREBY REVERSE THOSE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THROUGH WHICH THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WAS WRONGLY RESTRICTED. 13. AS A RESULT, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 ARE HEREBY ALLOWED. 14. TO CONCLUDE, ALL THE REVENUES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED AND THE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015. SD/ - SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA) (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 18 TH DEC., 2015. COPY FORWARDED TO : 1.BHARAT RAIL AUTOMATION PVT. LTD. C - 49/50, CO - OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BADNERA ROAD, SATURNA, AMRAVATI. . 2. ACIT/JCIT, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI. 3.CIT, CONCERNED 4. CIT(APPEALS) - II, NAGPUR. 5.D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.