DCIT, CC-1(1), CHENNAI V. M/S. AMCO BATTERIES LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 3155/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0230 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Keywords: Question of law; Set aside
• Section: 143(1); 143(2); 22

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: CHENNAI . . , . , BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU R.L. REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.3155/CHNY/2019 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF- INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI-600 034. V. M/S.AMCO BATTERIES LTD., 803, ADDISON BUILDING, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600 002. [PAN: AABCA 1726 F] ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : MR.SURESH PERIASAMY, JCIT ASSESSEE BY : MR.R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADV. /DATE OF HEARING : 09.11.2020 /DT. OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.12.2020 / O R D E R PER SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE REVENUE FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, CHENNAI, IN ITA NO.179/1 7-18/CIT(A)-4/AY: 2010-11 DATED 12.09.2019 FOR THE AY 2010-11. 2. M/S.AMCO BATTERIES LTD., THE ASSESSEE, IS ENGAGE D IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING & TRADING OF BATTERIES. WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE AY 2010-11, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (IN SHORT AO') D ISALLOWED THE PROVISION OF WARRANTY MAINLY FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WAS A VAST VARIATION IN RATIO ITA NO.3155/CHNY/2019 :- 2 -: BETWEEN THE ACTUAL EXPENSES & THE PROVISION CREATED . ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT. ON ASSESSEES APP EAL, THIS TRIBUNAL REMITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE AO TO EXAMINE THE IS SUE AFRESH. IN THE REVISION ORDER, THE AO HELD, INTER ALIA, THAT IN TH E ABSENCE OF ANY NEW MATERIAL BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE, NO DEVIATION IN THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS REQUIRED, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED B Y THE LD.CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, SUSTAINED THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE MADE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A). THE LD.CIT(A) AFTE R EXAMINING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION, MATERIAL AND AFTER CONSIDERI NG THE FACT THAT THE ITAT ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES SIMILAR CLAIM IN THE ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2009-2010 ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE FILED THIS APPEAL WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUND S: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING PROVISION FOR WARRANTY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR WARRANTY WAS MADE AFTER COMPARING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RECORDS? 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING PROVISION FOR WARRANTY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE PROVISION FOR WARRANTY CREATED DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR IS EXORBITANT COMPARED WITH THE HISTORICAL TREND OF EXPENDITURE I NCURRED TOWARDS WARRANTY IN THE PAST AND ASSESSEE HAS NOT RATIONALLY EXPLAINED THE STEEP INCREASE BASED ON COGENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM? 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING PROVISION FOR WARRANTY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR WARRANTY WAS M ADE AFTER COMPARING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RECORDS? 5. WHETHER THE LD.CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN TO ALLOW ASSES SEES APPEAL IN CONSONANCE WITH THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF R OTORK CONTROL VS. CIT WHERE IN THE APEX COURT CLEARLY EMPHASIZED THAT THE PROVISIO N SHOULD BE SCIENTIFICALLY ESTABLISHED, WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSES SEE NEVER PRODUCED ANY DETAILS, EVIDENCES INSPITE OF DIRECTION FROM THE HONBLE ITA T? ITA NO.3155/CHNY/2019 :- 3 -: 6. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASI DE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED. 3. THE CASE WAS HEARD THROUGH VIDEOCONFERENCING. T HE LD.DR PRESENTED THE CASE ON THE LINES OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL, SUPRA, AND PLEADED TO RESTORE THE ORDER OF THE AO. PER CONTRA, THE LD.AR SUBMITT ED THAT THE PROVISION OF WARRANTY IS RECOGNIZED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COMPLIANC E WITH THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD-29 (AS-29) AS PRESCRIBED BY THE ICAI AT TH E TIME OF SALE AND NOT AT THE TIME OF SETTLEMENT. THE ASSESSEES SIMILAR CLAIM IN THE AYS 2005-06 & AY 2007-08 WAS UPHELD BY THE LD.CIT(A). ON REVEN UES APPEAL, FOR THE AY 2005-06, THE HONBLE ITAT IN ITA NO.352/BANG/201 0 & IN ITA NO.142/BANG/2010 DATED 21.03.2011 CONFIRMED THE ORD ER OF THE LD.CIT(A) HOLDING THAT THE ESTIMATION IS FAIR AND REASONABLE. FOR THE AY 2007-08 ALSO, THE HONBLE ITAT UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IN ITA NO.378/BANG/2011 DATED 31.01.2012. HOWEVER, IN THE ORDER RELATED TO AY 2008-09 ON THIS ISSUE, THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT THE RATIO BETWEEN THE ACTUAL AND THE PROVISION WAS LESS THAN 70:100 DURING THE P ERIOD RELEVANT TO THE AYS 2005-06 & 2007-08, THEREFORE, HE (THE LD.CIT(A) ) CONSIDERED SUCH PROVISION IS ASCERTAINABLE AND HENCE DELETED THE A DDITIONS MADE BY THE AO IN THOSE ASSESSMENT YEARS. HOWEVER, SINCE THIS RAT IO IS 59:10 FOR THE AY 2008-09, WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE PARA METER FIXED B Y HIM I.E. 70:100 IN THE EARLIER YEARS, SUPRA, AND HENCE, THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT CONSIDER THE ESTIMATION OF PROVISION MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2008-09 AS A SCIENTIFIC & REASONABLE ONE AND ACCORDINGLY, UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY ITA NO.3155/CHNY/2019 :- 4 -: THE AO. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BE FORE THE HONBLE ITAT AND THE HONBLE ITAT ALLOWED ASSESSEES APPEAL HOLD ING THAT THE ARBITRARY RATIO OF 70:100 ASSUMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION & UNWARRANTED IN ITA NO.1116/BANG/2011 DATED 03.07.20 12 FOR THE AY 2008- 09. AGAINST THIS ORDER, THE REVENUE FILED AN APPEA L BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, WHICH UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE H ONBLE ITAT IN ITA NO.400 OF 2012 DATED 25.08.2020. THE LD.AR INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO THE PAPER BOOK, SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE PLEA DED THAT IT IS COMPLYING WITH THE AS-29 AS PER WHICH WARRANTY IS RECOGNIZED AT THE TIME OF SALE AND NOT AT THE TIME OF SETTLEMENT AND FURNISHED RELEVA NT MATERIALS VIZ., THE METHOD OF DETERMINATION OF PROVISION OF WARRANTY, L IABILITY MOVEMENT OF WARRANTY PROVISIONS FROM AY 2008-09 TO 2015, STATEM ENT SHOWING THE PROVISION VS. SETTLEMENT FOR ACCOUNTING YEARS I.E. 2007 TO 2015, ETC., AND CLEARLY EXPLAINED THAT WARRANTY IS RECOGNIZED AT TH E TIME OF SALE AND NOT AT THE TIME OF SETTLEMENT. THEREFORE, THE PROVISION G OES UP IF THE SALES GOES UP IN ANY YEAR & ALSO IF THE SETTLEMENT GOES UP, IT IS FACTORED IN THE PROVISION. SINCE THE WARRANTY PERIOD IS PRORATED OVER A PERIOD OF 12-36 MONTHS, ACCORDINGLY THE SETTLEMENTS WILL ALSO PROLONG FOR T HREE YEARS FROM THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PROVISION IS MADE, THE AO FAILED TO AP PRECIATE IT IN THE ORDER GIVING EFFECT, FOR THE REASONS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) O RIGINALLY UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY EXPLAIN ED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) BASED ON SUCH MATERIALS THAT THE PROVISIO N IS MADE ON A SCIENTIFIC MANNER TALKING INTO ACCOUNT THE RELEVANT FACTORS, W HICH WAS ALSO DULY RECOGNIZED AND UPHELD BY THE ITAT & THE HONBLE HIG H COURT, SUPRA, ETC., ITA NO.3155/CHNY/2019 :- 5 -: THE LD.CIT(A) CORRECTLY ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPE AL. HENCE, THE REVENUE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLEGING THAT THE ASSESSEES ME THOD IS NOT SCIENTIFIC AND HENCE, HE PLEADED TO DISMISS THE REVENUES APPEAL. 4. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH RELEVANT MATERIAL. THE ASSESSEE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACCOUNTING STAN DARD29 (AS-29) AS PRESCRIBED BY THE ICAI CLAIMED PROVISION FOR WARRAN TY. ITS CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT THERE IS VAST VARIAT ION IN RATIO BETWEEN THE ACTUAL EXPENSES & THE PROVISION CREATED. THEREFORE , IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IT IS FOLLOWING AS-29 AND THE PROVISION OF WARRANTY IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF SALE AND ALSO T HE ACTUAL TREND OF THE LAST FOUR YEARS AND THEN THE PROVISION IS WORKED OUT SCI ENTIFICALLY. IN THIS REGARD, LET US EXAMINE THIS ISSUE HISTORICALLY. THE ASSESS EES SIMILAR CLAIM IN THE AYS 2005-06 & 2007-08 WAS ALLOWED BY THE LD.CIT(A), WHICH WAS ALSO UPHELD BY THE HONBLE ITAT, SUPRA. HOWEVER, DURING THE APPEAL RELATED TO AY 2008-09, THE LD.CIT(A) REFUSED TO ALLOW THE CLAI M FOR THE REASON THAT THE RATIO BETWEEN THE ACTUAL AND THE PROVISION WHIC H WAS 70:100 DURING THE AYS 2005-06 & 2007-08 BUT IT WAS 59:100 IN AY 2008- 09 AND HENCE HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES ESTIMATION OF PROVISION IS NOT SCIENTIFIC & REASONABLE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL, WHICH ALLOWED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THAT ORDER, THE REVENUE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT IN ITA NO.400 OF 2012 DATED 25.08.2020 RELATED TO THE AY 2008-09, IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: ITA NO.3155/CHNY/2019 :- 6 -: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX THE APPEAL WAS ADMITTED BY A BENCH OF THIS COURT VI DE ORDER DATED 12.01.2013 ON THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW: (I) WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE PROVISION FOR WARRANTY OF RS.3,98,18,294/- IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE PROVISION ON A SCIENTIFIC BASIS AS ENUNCIATED BY THE APEX COURT IN ROTORK CONTROLS INDIA PVT. LTD., VS. CIT, 314 ITR 62? (II) WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING THA T THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION WHEN EXCESS PROVISION TOWARDS WARRANTY MADE IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS IS NOT OFFERED TO TAX BY REVERSING THE ENTRIES AS LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COUR T IN ROTORK CONTROLS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. CIT, 314 ITR 62? 2. FACTS LEADING TO FILING OF THIS APPEAL BRIEFLY S TATED ARE THAT ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 DECLARING IN COME OF RS.2,17,18,047/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT AND WA S SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THEREAFTER, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. T HE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 HAD CLAIMED PROVISION FOR WARRANTY FOR A SU M OF RS.3,98,18,294/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY AN ORDER DATED 29.11.2010 INTER ALIA HELD THAT PROVISION FOR WARRANTY MADE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCO UNT HAS BEEN MADE FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.9,80,90,650/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED ACTUAL EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,82,72,356/-. THUS, A SUM OF RS.3,98,18,294/- D EBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IS STILL OUTSTANDING IN THE NATURE OF PROVISION. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE ACT TO ALLOW ANY EXPENDITURE, WHICH IS IN THE NATUR E OF PROVISION AND IS CONTINGENT. ACCORDINGLY, A SUM OF RS.3,98,18,294/- WAS DISALLOW ED AND WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LEARN ED COUNSEL ON BOTH THE SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE, WHICH ARISES FO R CONSIDERATION IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN RO TORK CONTROLS INDIA (P) LTD. SUPRA HAVE BEEN TAKEN NOTE OF WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE OF ESTI MATION OF PROVISION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. AT THIS STAGE, IT IS RELEVANT TO EXTR ACT PARA 8 OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WHICH READS A S UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION. I FIND THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT IN ALL CASES THE PROVISION IS TO BE DISALLOWED AS EXPENDIT URE. THIS HAS BECOME THE STRICT LAW OF THE PAST AFTER THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT I N SEVERAL CASES THAT A PROVISION CAN ALSO BECOME AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION IF IT IS COMPUTE D WITH A CERTAIN DEGREE OF CERTAINTY. THE LOCUS CLASSICUS ON THE SUBJECT M/S ROTROK CONTROLS I NDIA PVT. LTD., VS. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC) THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED IN THAT ROTORK CASE HAS BEEN ANALYZED BY ME IN CASE OF M/S APPLE INDIA (P) LTD., ITA NO.77/DC-11(1)/A-I/10-11, DA TED 22.09.2011. THE RELEVANT PORTIONS ARE EXTRACTED BELOW:- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX THUS I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT IF THE RATIO BETWEEN ACT UAL EXPENDITURE AND PROVISIONS IS 70:100 THEN THE PROVISION BE CONSIDERED ASCERTAINABLE AND THEREFORE DEDUCTIBLE. ON THIS PREMISES I HAVE ALLOWED DELETION OF ADDITIONS IN APPELLANTS OW N CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2007-08. BUT EACH CASE IS DIFFERENT ON FACTS. THE A SSESSEE ALSO ADMITS THAT SALES OF THE COMPANY HAS GROWN BY LEAPS AND BOUNDS. THIS YEAR TH E RATIO BETWEEN ACTUAL EXPENDITURE AND WARRANTY PROVISION IS 59:100 AND THEREFORE DO N OT MEET THE PARAMETER FIXED BY ME I.E., 70:100 ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITIONS OF ASSES SMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2007-08 HAD BEEN DELETED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE I DO NOT CONSIDE R THE ESTIMATION OF PROVISION IN THIS YEAR IS SCIENTIFIC AND REASONABLE. HOWEVER, THE ALLOWANC E OF ACTUAL EXPENDITURE REDUCED BY THE ITA NO.3155/CHNY/2019 :- 7 -: A.O. AND DISALLOWANCE OF THE BALANCE IS FOUND JUSTIF IED. THE ADDITION IS UPHELD. THE RELATED GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 6. THUS, FROM CLOSE SCRUTINY OF PARAGRAPH 9, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN ROTORK CONTROLS INDIA (P) LTD. SUPR A HAD BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND THE ESTIMAT ION OF PROVISION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE UNSCIENTIFIC AND UNREASONABLE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOTED THAT ADMITTEDLY, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS CONSIDERED THE SAME WORKING METHOD OF PROVISION IN PREVIOUS TWO YEARS AND ALLOW ED THE PROVISION. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DID NOT ALL OW THE PROVISION FOR WARRANTY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE GROUND THAT THE RATION BETWE EN THE ACTUAL AND THE PROVISION IS LESS THAN 70:100. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE RATIO ADO PTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS IMAGINARY AND ARBITRARY AND IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT PROVISION OF WARRANTY WAS MADE EVERY YEAR IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCOUNTING STANDARDS 29 AND THE PROVISION IS WORKED OUT SCIENTIFICALLY EVERY YEAR M ERELY BECAUSE, THE PROVISION HAS COME DOWN TO 59:100, THE SAME CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. ACCO RDINGLY, THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT ESTIMATION OF PROVISION IS UNSCIENTIFIC AND IS UNREASONABLE HAS BEEN SET ASIDE. THUS, IT IS EVIDEN T THAT THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT TO ASSESS A PROVISION HAVE BEEN MET I N THE INSTANT CASE. THEREFORE, THE SUBMISSION MADE BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE THAT NEITHER COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NOR TRIBUNAL HAS EXAMINED THE RATIO LA ID DOWN IN ROTORK CONTROLS INDIA (P) LTD. SUPRA DOES NOT DESERVE ACCEPTANCE. IN VIEW OF PRECEDING ANALYSIS, THE SUBSTANTIAL QUES TIONS OF LAW FRAMED ARE ANSWERED AGAINST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE R ESULT, THE APPEAL FAILS AND IS HEREBY DISMISSED. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING THIS METHOD, WHICH HAS BEEN FOUND BY THE HONBLE ITAT, TO BE SCIENTIFIC AND THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE APEX COURT IS ALSO MET, SUPRA, WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONB LE HIGH COURT, SUPRA. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE REVENUE S APPEAL AND HENCE, DISMISS THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 22 ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020, IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . ) (DUVVURU R.L. REDDY) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (S. JAYARAMAN) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3155/CHNY/2019 :- 8 -: /CHENNAI, /DATED: 22 ND DECEMBER, 2020. TLN /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 4. ' /CIT 2. /RESPONDENT 5. /DR 3. ' ( ) /CIT(A) 6. /GF