DCIT(LTU), New Delhi V. M/s. Rural Electrification Corpn. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3011/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3087 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 11-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVIKANT GUPTA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Principle of natural justice; Earning of tax free income; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 147; 148; 154

Judgement Text

PAGE | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3009 TO 3011 /DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 - 06 , 2006 - 07 AND 2009 - 10 DCIT(LTU), NEW DELHI VS. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPN LTD, CORE - IV, SCOPE COMPLEX, 7 LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI PAN:AAACR4512R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 3078 , 3079 /DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 AND 2009 - 10 ) RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPN LTD, CORE - IV, SCOPE COMPLEX, 7 LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI PAN:AAACR4512R VS. DCIT, LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI RAVI KANT GUPTA, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY: SH MANONEET SALAL, ADV SHRI YISHU GOEL, CA DATE OF HEARING 10/01/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 6 / 0 3 / 2018 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI , A. M. 1. ALL THESE SIX APPEALS PERTAIN TO ONE ASSESSEE INVOLVING COMMON GROUNDS FOR DIFFERENT YEARS, THEREFORE, THESE ARE HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF TOGETHER BY THE COMMON ORDER. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP ITA NO. 3009/ DEL/2014 FOR AY 2005 - 06 PREFERRED THE DCIT, LTU DELHI AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) - LTU, NEW DELHI DATED 26.02.2014 WHEREIN REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS QUASHED. 3. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 3009/DEL/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 : - DCIT(LTU), VS. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPN LTD, ITA NO. 3009 TO 3011/DEL/2014 ITA NO. 3078, 3079/DEL/2014 (AY: 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2009 - 10 PAGE | 2 1 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY HOLDING IT AS NULL AND VOID, MERELY ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS WHILE IGNORING THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 12356771/ - AND RS. 11299879/ - BEING THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST NOT OFFERED TO TAX BY ASSESSEE HOLDING THE ORDER AS NULL AND VOID MERELY ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS WHILE IGNORING THE MERIT OF THE CASE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY HOLDING IT AS NULL AND VOID MERELY ON TECHNICAL GROUND OF A MINOR INADVERTENT MISTAKE BY AO WHILE IGNORING THE FACTS OF SUCH MISTAKE HAVING BEEN C OMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TWICE WHILE FILING ITS OBJECTIONS FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENTS. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY HOLDING IT AS NULL AND VOID MERELY ON TECHNICAL GROUN DS EVEN THOUGH HE HIMSELF HAS AGREED THAT REOPENING IS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGE OF OPINION AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. BRIEF FACTS SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING FINANCE FOR RURAL ELECTRIFICATION. IT FILED ITS RETUR N OF INCOME ON 31.10.2005 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 6548889120/ - AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 31.01.2006 AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6848816880/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 23.03.2011 ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ADDLL. CIT, KARIM NAGAR THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ADVANCED A LOAN TO ONE OF THE SOCIETY AND HAS EARNED INTEREST ON THE LOAN OF RS. 10 CRORES. IN THE CASE OF THAT COMPANY THE ITAT HYDERABAD HAS PASSED ORDER STARTING FROM 1999 - 2000 TO 2005 - 06 HOLDING THAT SUCH INCOME WAS NOT TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THAT COMPANY BUT IS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY. THE REASONS WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 27.09.2011 AND ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTIONS WHICH WERE REJECTED VIDE ORDER DATED 20.10.20 11. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 07.12.2011 WHEREIN, THE ADDITION OF RS. 23656650/ - WAS MADE. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE DCIT(LTU), VS. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPN LTD, ITA NO. 3009 TO 3011/DEL/2014 ITA NO. 3078, 3079/DEL/2014 (AY: 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2009 - 10 PAGE | 3 ORDER OF THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF REOPE NING AS WELL AS ON THE ISSUE OF MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS. THE LD CIT(A) QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HOLDING THAT IN IDENTICAL CASE FOR AY 2004 - 05 THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE IS IN AP PEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER LD AO AND STATED THAT REOPENING IS VALID. 6. THE LD AR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) WHICH FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE ON IDENTICAL ISSUE FOR AY 2004 - 05. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE REASONS RECORDED ABOUT ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT. HE FURTHER REFERRED THE NOTES ON ACCOUNTS AND SHOWED THAT SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICY HAS DISCLOSED THIS ISSUE IN ITS COMPLETENESS. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ON IDENTICAL ISSUE THE REOPENING WAS MA DE BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER FROM AY 1999 - 2000 TO 2004 - 05. THE REOPENING WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT BY FILING A WRIT PETITION FOR AY 2004 - 05 WHICH WAS DISPOSED OFF BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WPC NO. 7943/2011 VIDE ORDER DATED 24.0 3.2013 QUASHING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HOLDING THAT INITIATION OF THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2004 - 05 DID NOT HAVE THE BACKING OF THE LAW. THE LD AR AND DR BOTH CONFIRMED BEFORE US THAT ISSUE IS IDENTICAL IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO HAS FOLLOWED THAT ORDER OF THE LD HON'BLE HIGH COURT WHILE QUASHING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THIS YEAR. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS WE DO N OT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) IN QUASHING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR AY 2005 - 06. IN VIEW OF THIS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DOES NOT SURVIVE HENCE, DISMISSED. DCIT(LTU), VS. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPN LTD, ITA NO. 3009 TO 3011/DEL/2014 ITA NO. 3078, 3079/DEL/2014 (AY: 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2009 - 10 PAGE | 4 8. IN THE RESULT ITA NO . 3009/DEL/2014 FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR AY 20 05 - 06 IS DISMISSED. 9. NOW WE COME TO THE APPEAL OF THE PARTIES FOR AY 2006 - 07. 10. THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) - LTU, NEW DELHI IN ITA NO. 3010/DEL/2014 RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.93,73,987/ - OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 1,25,74,387/ - MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ACCRUED TO VARIOUS COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES BUT TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. M/ S REC LTD. 2 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.93,73,987/ - OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 1,25,74,387/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT NOTWITHSTANDING OFFERING OF SUCH INCOME BY VARIOUS SOCIET IES IN THEIR HANDS, THE SAME IS LEGALLY TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. M/S REC LTD. 3 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.93,73,987/ - OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 1,25,74,387/ - IGNORING HIS OWN FINDINGS IN THE SAME APPELLATE ORDER, HOLDING INCOME OF THE SAME NATURE AS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. M/S REC LTD. 11. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE SAME ORDER IN ITA NO. 3078/DEL/2014 RAISING FOLLOWING THRE E GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE AOS RECOURSE TO THE RE - ASSESSMENT/ INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, OF THE DULY CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9070673/ - BEING DONE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF TREATING THE INTERES T INCOME EARNED BY THE RE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, SIRICILA (HYDERABAD), ON SPECIAL RESERVE FUND CREATED AND MAINTAINED BY IT OUT OF THE INTEREST FORGONE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY, AS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3201000/ - BEING DONE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF TREATING THE INTEREST INCOME DCIT(LTU), VS. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPN LTD, ITA NO. 3009 TO 3011/DEL/2014 ITA NO. 3078, 3079/DEL/2014 (AY: 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2009 - 10 PAGE | 5 EARNED BY THE RE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, NOWGONG (MP) ON SPECIAL RESERVE FUND CREATED AND MAINTAINED B Y IT OUT OF THE INTEREST FORGONE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY, AS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. 12. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS STATED EARLIER THAT ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY PROVIDING FINANCE FOR RURAL ELECTRIFICATION. FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED ON 19.12.2008 AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5245534725/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, AS THE FACTS STATED IN APPEAL FOR AY 2005 - 06 OF THE REVENUE THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. THEREAFTER, INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCES GIVEN BY THE ASSESS EE TO VARIOUS SOCIETIES, WHO MA INTAINED A SPECIAL RESERVE FUND WAS CONSIDERED TO BE TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDITION OF RS. 21645060/ - WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 147 W AS PASSED ON 07.12.2011. ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD AO PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). THE LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE REOPENING HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT DISCLOSURE IN THE NOTES TO THE ACCOUNTS FOR THE AO TO UNABLE HIM TO HO LD THAT THE INTEREST ACCRUED THEREON WAS NOT AN INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT NEW INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED IN THE FORM OF THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH. ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE , THE LD CIT(A) THOUGH HELD THAT INTEREST ON SPECIAL F UND COULD NOT TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY BUT BECAUSE OF THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH HE HELD THAT INTEREST IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. 13. THE LD AR CONTESTING ON THE GROUND OF REOPENING SUBMITTED THAT THE REOPENING HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ANOTHER PERSON WITHOUT INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE LD AO TO THE INFORMATION AND FORMING AN OPINION. HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE REOPENING HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ADDL CIT, KARIM NAGAR REGARDING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, DCIT(LTU), VS. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPN LTD, ITA NO. 3009 TO 3011/DEL/2014 ITA NO. 3078, 3079/DEL/2014 (AY: 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2009 - 10 PAGE | 6 HYDERABAD WITHOUT INDEPENDENTLY APPLIED HIS OWN MIND. FOR THIS PROPOSITION HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: - A. CIT VS. SFIL STOCK BROKING LTD 325 ITR 285 (DEL) B. CIT VS. ATUL JAIN 299 ITR 383 (DELHI HC) C. SHEO NARAIN JAISAL VS. ITO 176 ITR 352 (PATNA HC) D. ACIT VS. DHARIYA CONSTRUCTION CO. 328 ITR 515 (S.C.) 14. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THERE IS MERELY A CHANGE OF OPINION AS ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ADEQUATE DISCLOSURE REGARDING CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST. HE FURTHER REFERRED TO NOTE NO. 2.8 OF THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS. 15. WITH RESPECT TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE HE SUBMITTED THAT LD CIT(A) HAS AGREED ON PRINCIPLE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLA NT HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH HE DECIDED ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT APPLICATION OF DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF THE SOMEBODY ELSE AND DECIDING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IS CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT SUCH DECISION CANNOT BE A BINDING PRECEDENT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS INCORRECTLY INTERPRETED THE SPECIAL FUNDS RULES AND INCORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE SPECIAL FUND LIES WITH THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT INCOME IS CONTINGENT IN NATURE. THEREFORE, HE SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED AS INTEREST INCOME HAS NEVER CRYSTALLIZED IN THE HANDS OF THE ROC AND THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 16. WITH RESPECT TO GROUND NO. 3 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THAT DISPUTED INTEREST INCOME DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ROCS INCOME HOWEVER, HE HELD THAT SAME IS CORRECTLY TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE DUE TO NON P RODUCTION OF ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED THE DETAIL SUPPORTING THOUGH ON SAMPLE BASIS. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS THE APPELLANT WAS ABLE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS FROM SOCIETIES AND IN THAT YEAR SAME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE TAX DEPA RTMENT THAT INTEREST INCOME OF THE FUND HAS OFFERED TO TAX BY SAID DCIT(LTU), VS. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPN LTD, ITA NO. 3009 TO 3011/DEL/2014 ITA NO. 3078, 3079/DEL/2014 (AY: 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2009 - 10 PAGE | 7 SOCIETY IN ITS HANDS. HE THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION. 17. THE LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES. 18. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE APPELLANT IS A PUBLIC SECTOR ENTERPRISE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING FINANCE FOR PROMOTING RURAL ELECTRIFICATION. THE APPEL LANT PROVIDES FINANCE TO VARIOUS SOCIETIES WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF POWER. THE APPELLANT HAS A POLICY WHEREBY THE INTEREST OF FIVE YEARS IS FORGONE BY THE APPELLANT SUBJECT TO CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE APPELLANT. SUCH TERMS A ND CONDITIONS ARE TABULATED IN SPECIFIC RESERVE FUNDS RULES. ACCORDING TO ONE OF SUCH RULES THAT THE INTEREST ON SUCH FUNDS IS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT IN FIXED DEPOSITS AS A SPECIAL FUND. THE REFUND IS LYING WITH THE SOCIETIES AND THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE IS THAT INTEREST ON SUCH FUNDS IS REQUIRED TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE SOCIETIES. THE CLAIM OF THE SOCIETIES IS THAT IT IS NOT THEIR INCOME BUT IT IS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. ONCE SUCH DISPUTE REACH ED HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN , IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SUCH INCOME IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE INFORMATION WAS GIVEN BY THE ADDL. CIT, KARIM NAGAR TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATING THAT SUCH INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPTS OF SPECIAL RESERVE FU ND IS HELD BY THE COORDINATE BENCH AS TAXABLE NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE SOCIETIES BUT IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IS IN ITA NO. 1112 TO 1115/HYD/2005, 1198 - 99/HYD/2005, 1635/HYD/2008, 570/HYD/2009 FOR AY 1999 - 2000 TO 2 006 - 04 DATED 13.01.2010 . IN PARAGRAPH NO. 8 THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD THAT INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST ON SUCH FIXED DEPOSITS RECEIPTS HAS ACCRUED TO THE APPELLANT IN ITS OWN RIGHT. THE AMOUNT SO COLLECTED WAS RETAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WAS AVAILABLE W ITH IT FOR USE AND APPLICATION AS PER ITS DIRECTION. BECAUSE OF THESE FINDING OF THE COORDINATE BENCH THE ADDL. CIT KARIM DCIT(LTU), VS. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPN LTD, ITA NO. 3009 TO 3011/DEL/2014 ITA NO. 3078, 3079/DEL/2014 (AY: 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2009 - 10 PAGE | 8 NAGAR PASSED ON INFORMATION TO THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEN, AFTER RECORDING REASONS, PROVIDING COPIES OF THE REASONS AND MEETING THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS IT IS APPARENT THAT NEW TANGIBLE MATERIAL HAS COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREFROM IT IS FOUND THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT HAS ESCAPED INCOME. THE NEW INFORMATION IS BASED ON THE JUDICIAL ORDER WHICH BINDS THE ADDL CIT, KARIMNAGAR BEING THE JURISDICTIONAL OFFICER WORKING UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH. THEREFORE, THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WAS BASED ON JUDICIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT INCOME ON SUCH FDRS ACCRUED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, ON THIS INFORMATION THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT HAVE TO APPLY HIS MIND AT A LL BUT ONLY TO FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH ALONG WITH THE LETTER OF THE ADDL. CIT, KARIMNAGAR. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH AND THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE ADDL. CIT, KARIMNAGAR. THE INFORMATION WAS ALSO SUPPLIED THAT INTEREST INCOME IS RS. 49 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON REC BONDS AND RS. 4170673/ - BEING INTEREST ON COMMERCIAL BANK FUNDS. IN VIEW OF THIS IT IS APPARENT THAT INFORMATION WAS SPECIFIC AND NATURALLY NOT OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO US NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND IN THE REOPENING INITIATED BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SEVERAL DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE RELATING TO INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING OR FROM OUTSIDE AGENCIES . HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE INFORMATION IS IN THE FORM OF A JUDICIAL ORDER WHICH EVEN OTHERWISE BINDS THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS ALL THE DECISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE REOPENING RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT COME TO THE RESC UE OF THE ASSESSEE. 19. ON THE ISSUE OF CHANGE OF OPINION IT IS APPARENT THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IIN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE TAXABILITY OF INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS WITH THE SOCIETIES. EVEN DCIT(LTU), VS. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPN LTD, ITA NO. 3009 TO 3011/DEL/2014 ITA NO. 3078, 3079/DEL/2014 (AY: 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2009 - 10 PAGE | 9 OTHERWISE IT IS A JUDICIAL DE CISION WHICH HAS BEEN RENDERED BY ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH BASED ON WHICH THE REOPENING IS INITIATED. ANY JUDICIAL DECISION BY THE COURTS AND TRIBUNAL IF IT IS RENDERED SUBSEQUENT TO THE PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IF REOPENING IS INITIATED OF THE CONC LUDED ASSESSMENT , ACCORDING TO US , SAME CANNOT BE CALLED AS CHANGE OF OPINION. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMI SSED. 20. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL IS WITH RESPECT TO UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9070673/ - BY THE LD CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY SIRECILA, HYDERABAD ON SPECIAL RESERVE FUND CREATED AND MAINTAINED BY THE SOCIETY WHI CH HAS BEEN FORGONE BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THE ABOVE ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) HOLDING THAT DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH BINDS HIM. SIMILAR IS THE SITUATION WITH US. IF THE ASSESSEE IS AGREED WITH THE ORDER O F THE ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH DECISION WHICH HAS RENDERED CERTAIN FINDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE CHALLENGED THE SAME BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. APPARENTLY, IT WAS NOT DONE. IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO SAY ANYTHING ON THE CORRECT NESS OF THAT DECISION, IT BINDS US JUDICIALLY. FURTHER, WHEN ON EXAMINATION OF THE RULES AND THE ALL OTHER CRITERIA RELATED TO THE CREATION OF SPECIAL RESERVE FUND AND ITS CONTROL THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD THAT INTEREST HAS ACCRUED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. BEFORE US EXCEPT REITERATING THE SAME FACTS THE LD AR HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY OTHER EVIDENCE OR ANY EVIDENCE OF DECISION OF THE HIGHER FORUM WHERE THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCES WE ALSO RESPEC TFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH BASED ON WHICH REOPENING HAS BEEN INITIATED, WE ALSO CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS. 9070673/ - . ACCORDING GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. DCIT(LTU), VS. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPN LTD, ITA NO. 3009 TO 3011/DEL/2014 ITA NO. 3078, 3079/DEL/2014 (AY: 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2009 - 10 PAGE | 10 21. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL IS ALSO RELATING TO THE OTHER S OCIETY FROM MADHYA PRADESH WHERE THE ADDITION OF RS. 3201000/ - WAS ALSO MADE ON SIMILAR FACTS AS IN GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, FOR THE REASONS GIVEN BY US IN GROUND NO. 2, WE ALSO DISMISSED GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL HOLDING THAT ADDITION OF RS . 3201000/ - HAS BEEN CORRECTLY MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 22. IN THE RESULT APPEAL NO. 3078/DEL/2014 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2006 - 07 IS DISMISS ED . 23. NOW COMING TO THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WHICH HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A), WHEREIN TH E ADDITION OF RS. 12574387/ - MADE BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN DELETED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 9373987/ - HOLDING THAT AS THESE SOCIETIES HAVE ALREADY OFFERED THE INTEREST INCOME IN THEIR HANDS. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION WITH RESPECT T O THE 8 SOCIETIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 12574387/ - ON THE IDENTICAL FACTS. HOWEVER, THE LD CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT INTEREST INCOME EXCEPT IN CASE OF CHEEPURUPAALE, ANKAPALLE AND NOWGONG ALL OTHER SOCIETIES HAVE DULY ACCOUNTED FOR THE SAID INTERES T INCOME AND CONFIRMATION CERTIFICATE FROM THOSE PARTIES FOR TREATMENT OF INTEREST INCOME AND COPY OF THE FDR CERTIFICATES WERE PRODUCED. THEREFORE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION WITH RESPECT TO THE SOCIETIES. 24. THE LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD AO AND THE LD AR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 25. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE LD CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION WITH RE SPECT TO THOSE SOCIETIES WHOSE CONFIRMATION OF OFFERING THE INTEREST INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THOSE SOCIETIES WAS FINISHED BY THOSE SOCIETIES. IN ABSENCE OF THOSE CERTIFICATES THE ADDITIONS WERE CONFIRMED. THE LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT POINT O UT ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). WE ARE ALSO OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW WHEN THE INCOME HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THOSE SOCIETIES DCIT(LTU), VS. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPN LTD, ITA NO. 3009 TO 3011/DEL/2014 ITA NO. 3078, 3079/DEL/2014 (AY: 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2009 - 10 PAGE | 11 IN THEIR OWN HAND IT CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF T HE REVENUE HENCE, WE DISMISS ALL THE THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 26. IN THE RESULT WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 27. NOW WE COME TO THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2009 - 10 IN ITA NO. 3079/DEL/2014. 28. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF A PPEAL IN ITA NO. 3079/DEL/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE AOS RECOURSE TO THE RE - ASSESSMENT/ INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, OF THE DULY CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1507235 / - BEING DONE BY THE AO O N ACCOUNT OF TREATING THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE RE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, SIRICILA (HYDERABAD), ON SPECIAL RESERVE FUND CREATED AND MAINTAINED BY IT OUT OF THE INTEREST FORGONE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY, AS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 49653 / - BEING DONE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF TREATING THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE RE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, NOWGONG (MP) ON SPECIAL RESERV E FUND CREATED AND MAINTAINED BY IT OUT OF THE INTEREST FORGONE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY, AS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. 29. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HA S EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 8080076/ - . THE LD AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN VARIOUS MUTUAL FUNDS AND SHARES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY ABOUT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A THAT IT HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FU NDS OUT OF SURPLUS FUNDS AVAILABLE. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT DIVIDEND OF RS. 71.77 LACS IS RECEIVED FROM INVESTMENT IN LIQUID FUNDS. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND RECORDED HIS DCIT(LTU), VS. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPN LTD, ITA NO. 3009 TO 3011/DEL/2014 ITA NO. 3078, 3079/DEL/2014 (AY: 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2009 - 10 PAGE | 12 SATISFACTION AND AFTER THAT HE APPLI ED THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES AND COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 22499273/ - . ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CORRECTION AS PER APPLICATION U/S 154 DATED 30.10.2012 FILED BEFORE THE LD AS SESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 30. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHARE APPLICATION AND FREE RESERVE AS ON 31.03.2009 ON RS. 1781 CRORES AND THEREFORE, THE INVESTMENT MADE BY IT IN EARNING EXEMPT INCOME ARE MUCH LE SS THEN THE ABOVE SUM. HE THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST SHALL BE MADE. 31. THE LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 32. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ADMITTEDLY, T HE ASSESSEE HAS AVAILABILITY OF FUND OF RS. 2128 CRORES WHICH DOES NOT CARRY ANY INTEREST. THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY RS. 462 CRORES. THEREFORE, APPARENTLY ASSESSEE HAS MORE INTEREST FREE FUNDS THEN THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT. THE LD CIT(A) THOUGH HAS CONSIDERED THE ABOVE ISSUE HOWEVER, HAS STATE THAT ASSESSEE WAS PERMITTED TO INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS OUT OF THIS INTEREST FREE FUNDS. HOWEVER, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON INTEREST MERELY FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE COULD HAVE INVE STED BORROWED FUNDS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN HDFC BANK LTD VS. DCIT 383 ITR 529 AND HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PR. CIT VS. SINTEX INDUSTRIES LTD 248 TAXMANN 449 , THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 21815273/ - DESERVES TO BE DELETED. WITH RESPECT TO 0.5% OF AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT THE LD AR DID NOT SUBMIT ANY EXPLANATION. THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A TO THE EXTENT OF 0.5% OF THE AVERAGE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENT AS PROVIDED DCIT(LTU), VS. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPN LTD, ITA NO. 3009 TO 3011/DEL/2014 ITA NO. 3078, 3079/DEL/2014 (AY: 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2009 - 10 PAGE | 13 UNDER RULE 8D. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 33. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL IS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 1507235/ - AND AS P ER GROUND NO. 3 RS. 49653/ - PERTAINING TO TWO SOCIETIES ON SPECIAL RESERVE FUNDS. BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT ISSUE IS SIMILAR TO GROUND NO. 2 AND 3 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2006 - 07. 34. WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ABOVE ISSUE HOLDING THAT AS PE R THE DECISION OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF ITAT THIS AMOUNT IS CORRECTLY TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE DISMISS GROUND NO. 2 AND 3 OF THE APPEAL. 35. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 3079/DEL/2014 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 36. NOW WE COM E TO THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 3011/DEL/2014, WHEREIN THE FOUR GROUNDS RAISED HAVE BEEN RAISED AS UNDER: - 1 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,09,33,800/ - MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR POST RETIREMENT MEDICAL EXPENSES 2 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,32,76,964/ - OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 1,33,26,617/ - MADE BY AO ON AC COUNT OF INTEREST ACCRUED TO VARIOUS COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES BUT TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. M/S REC LTD. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,32,76,964/ - OUT OF TOTAL A DDITION OF RS. 1,33,26,617/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT NOTWITHSTANDING OFFERING OF SUCH INCOME BY VARIOUS SOCIETIES IN THEIR HANDS, THE SAME IS LEGALLY TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. M/S REC LTD ONLY. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,32,76,964/ - OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 1,33,26,617/ - IGNORING HIS OWN FINDINGS IN THE SAME APPELLATE ORDER, HOLDING INCOME OF THE SAME NATURE AS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. M/S REC LTD. DCIT(LTU), VS. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPN LTD, ITA NO. 3009 TO 3011/DEL/2014 ITA NO. 3078, 3079/DEL/2014 (AY: 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2009 - 10 PAGE | 14 37. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE FOR PROVISION OF POST RETIREMENT, MEDICAL EXPENSES OF THE STAFF OF RS. 40933800/ - HOLDING THAT THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONTINGENT IN NATURE. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) THE ADDITION WAS DELETED HOLDING THAT THE CLAIM FOR PROVISION FOR POST RETIREMENT MEDICAL BENEFIT IS AN ASCERTAIN LIABILITY. 38. THE LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD AO, WHEREAS THE LD AR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 39. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE POST RETIREMENT MEDICAL BENEFIT PROVISION HAS BEEN CREATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCOUNTING STANDARD 15 RELATING TO EMPLOYEES BENEFIT. THE ABOVE PROVISION WAS MADE ON ACTUARIAL VALUATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POST R ETIREMENT MEDICAL SCHEME. THE LD CIT(A) ALLOWED THE ABOVE CLAIM HOLDING THAT SUCH PROVISION IS ACCRUED LIABILITY AND NOT CONTINGENT IN NATURE. HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN BOKARO POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD VS. DCIT (4921/ DEL/2010). SIM ILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT THAT WHERE THE PROVISION HAS BEEN CREATED ON THE BASIS OF ACTUARIAL CALCULATION ON A SCIENTIFIC BASIS THE LIABILITY IS NOT CONTINGENT BUT DEFINITE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE. IN VIEW OF THIS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 40. GROUND NO. 2 TO 4 OF THE APPEAL IS RELATED TO TAXABILITY OF INTEREST INCOME ON SPECIAL RESERVE FUNDS. THE LD CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE INTEREST BECAUSE THE APPELLANT PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF CONFIRMATION ETC. 41. BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND NO. 2 AND 3 TO AY 2006 - 07 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THEREF ORE, FOR THE REASONS GIVEN THEREIN WE CONFIRM THE FINDING OF THE LD CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ABOVE ADDITION AS ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED PROPER CONFIRMATION WITH RESPECT TO THE VARIOUS SOCIETIES WHO HAVE OFFERED THE INTEREST INCOME DCIT(LTU), VS. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPN LTD, ITA NO. 3009 TO 3011/DEL/2014 ITA NO. 3078, 3079/DEL/2014 (AY: 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2009 - 10 PAGE | 15 ON SPECIAL RESERVE FUND IN THE IR HANDS. IN VIEW OF THIS GROUND NO. 2 TO 4 ARE DISMISSED. 42. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 3011/DEL/2014 FOR AY 2009 - 10 IS DISMISSED. 43. IN THE RESULT ALL THE ABOVE SIX APPEALS OF THE PARTIES FOR THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THI S COMMON ORDER. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 6 / 0 3 / 2018 . - S D / - - S D / - ( SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA ) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 6 / 03 / 2018 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI