The DCIT,(OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad V. M/s. Claris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 3187/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0524 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-03-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y P VERMA
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: SHRI D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEVI , ACC OUNTANT MEMBER DCIT(OSD), RANGE-1 AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) VS CLARIS LIFE SCIENCE LTD. CORPORATE TOWERS NR. PARIMAL CROSSING, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD380006 PAN NO. AAACC6366Q (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 13/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2004-05 CLARIS LIFE SCIENCE LTD. CORPORATE TOWERS NR. PARIMAL CROSSING, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD380006 PAN NO. AAACC6366Q (CROSS OBJECTOR) VS . DCIT(OSD), RANGE-1 AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SRI Y.P. VERMA, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE BY: SRI S.N. SOPARKAR, SR.A.R. WITH MS. URVASHI SHODHAN DATE OF HEARING : 06-3-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 -03-2013 ITA NO. 3187/AHD/2010 A.Y.:-2004-05 I.T.A NO3187/ADH/2010 & C.O. NO. 13/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2004-05 PAGE NO DCIT(OSD)VS. CLARIS LIFE SCIENCES LTD. 2 / ORDER PER : D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- APPEAL OF REVENUE AND C.O. OF ASSESSEE ARE FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-VI, AHMEDABAD DATED 09-09-2010. FIRST WE WILL TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA N O. 3187/AHD/2010 2. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DEL ETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S 36(1)(III) AMOUNTING TO RS. 49,37,388/-. 3. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE LD . CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S 36(1)(III) AMOUNTING TO RS. 49,37,388/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MA KING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 49,37,388/- U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 2.1 ON VERIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS AND DETAILS FURNIS HED, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS IN THE FOLLO WING OVERSEAS COMPANIES. 1 592765 EQUITY SHARES OF CATALYS VENTURE CAP. LTD. MAURITIUS- SUBSIDIARY COMPANY 262,84,646 2 760 EQUITY SHARES OF CLARIS LIFESCIENCES CA OF VENEZUELA-SUBSIDIARY COMPANY 34,650 3 1855739 EQUITY SHARES OF CLARIS PRODUCTS FARMACEUTICOS DO BRAZIL LTD.-OTHER COMPANY 291,72,890/- TOTAL 554,92,186 THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF CATALYS VENTURE CAP LTD. MAURITIUS & IN SHARES OF CLARIS LIFE SCIENCES CA, VENEZUELA W AS MADE IN I.T.A NO3187/ADH/2010 & C.O. NO. 13/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2004-05 PAGE NO DCIT(OSD)VS. CLARIS LIFE SCIENCES LTD. 3 EARLIER YEAR WHEREAS ENTIRE INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF CLARIS PRODUCES FARMACEUICOS DO BRAXIL LTDES WAS MADE ON DIFFERENT DATES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THESE INVESTMENTS ARE NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINE SS OF THE COMPANY AND NO INCOME IS DERIVED BY THE COMPANY FROM SUCH I NVESTMENTS. THE COMPANY HAS DEBITED INTEREST OF RS. 2,07,87,138 /- TO ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE COMPANY WA S ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE INTEREST EXPENSES SHOULD NOT BE DISAL LOWED IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT IN THE EQUITY SHARES OF THE COMPANY MENT IONED ABOVE. AS PER THE DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2002- 03, TOTAL AMOUNT OF INTEREST FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPO SES COMES TO RS. 49,37,388/-. (AS COMPUTED BELOW) WHICH IS HEREBY DI SALLOWED AND ADDED BACK IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 4. LD. CIT(A) AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE S UBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY HIM IN PARA 2.2 OF HIS ORDER HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 2.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE; ASSES SMENT ORDER AND APPELLANTS SUBMISSION. ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOW ED THE INTEREST ON THE CAPITAL BORROWED SINCE APPELLANT MADE INVESTMEN T IN SHARES OF SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES. INVESTMENT IN TWO SUBSIDIARI ES IS COMING SINCE LAST MANY YEARS WHEREAS INVESTMENT IN BRAZILIAN COM PANY WAS MADE DURING THE YEAR. THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON A CCOUNT OF SUCH INVESTMENT IN SHARES WAS MADE IN EARLIER YEARS ALSO HOWEVER ITAT AHMEDABAD HAS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION IN ITS ORDER DA TED DECEMBER 22,2006 FOR ASST. YEAR 2000-01 AND A.Y. 2002-03 WAS FILED IN WHICH THE ISSUE OF INTEREST DISALLOWANCE WAS DECIDED IN A PPELLANTS FAVOR. IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2003-04, M Y LEARNED PREDECESSOR IN THE ORDER DATED MARCH 29, 2007 ALLOW ED THE CLAIM OF INTEREST ON THE GROUND THAT CASH PROFITS WERE MORE THAN THE INVESTMENT. SINCE FACTS REMAIN SAME DURING THE YEA R ALSO, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF ITAT AHMEDABAD AND THE ORDE R OF MY LEARNED PREDECESSOR, I DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. I.T.A NO3187/ADH/2010 & C.O. NO. 13/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2004-05 PAGE NO DCIT(OSD)VS. CLARIS LIFE SCIENCES LTD. 4 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AMO UNTING TO RS. 49,37,388/- ON THE BASIS OF DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. SINCE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVE N RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ITSELF AND THE SAME BEING CONFIRMED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 24-08-2011 IN TAX APPEAL NO. 1161 OF 2010, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM AND TH E SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. 6. REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. C.O. NO. 13/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2004-05 7. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE L D. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF A.O. IN NOT ALLOWING THE C LAIM OF EXPENDITURE OF RS. 90,97,554/- IN REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. THE FACTS ABOUT THIS GROUND WILL BE CLEAR FROM THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD . CIT(A) WHICH READS AS UNDER:- THE APPELLANT COMPANY FILED A REVISED RETURN OF IN COME ON 28/04/2006 DECLARING TOTAL LOSS AT RS. 2,13,68,576/ - AS AGAINST THE LOSS OF RS. 1,22,17,820/- DISCLOSED IN THE ORIGINAL RETU RN OF INCOME FILED ON 1/11/2004. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE APPELLANT HAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 18/12/2006 THE FACT OF FLING REVISED RETURN OF INCO ME ON 20/04/2006. THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME CAME TO BE FILED FOR T HE REASON THAT EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 90,97,755/- PERTAININ G TO THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR REMAIN TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS OF OTHER COMPANY, THOUGH, THE LIABILITY FOR THESE EXPE NSES HAD ACCRUED I.T.A NO3187/ADH/2010 & C.O. NO. 13/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2004-05 PAGE NO DCIT(OSD)VS. CLARIS LIFE SCIENCES LTD. 5 AND CRYSTALLIZED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A .Y. 2004-05. DUE TO ACCOUNTING MISTAKE, THE EXPENSES WHERE NOT ACCOUNTE D IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR ENDED 31/03/2004 AND ON REALIZING THE MISTAKE WHILE FINALIZING THE ACCOUNT FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR ENDED ON 31 ST MARCH, 2005, THE APPELLANT COMPANY FIELD REVISED RETURN AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE EXPENSES FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL HAS INCREASED BY RS. 90,97,755/-. CONSEQUENTLY, THE TOTAL LOSS FOR THE YEAR UNDER APP EAL STOOD REVISED TO RS. 2,13,68,576/-. HOWEVER, WHILE FINALIZING THE A SSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DI D NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 24/04/2006. IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER APPEAL, T HE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE ANY MENTION WHATSOEV ER WITH RESPECT TO THE FILING OF THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 20 /04/2006 IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SPECIFICALLY DRAWN THE ATTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE FACT OF FILING THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 20/04/2006. NO REASON WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN ASCRIBED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NOT CONSIDERING THE REVIS ED RETURN OF INCOME WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER APPEAL. SECTION 139 (5) PROVIDES THAT IF ANY PERSON HAVING FURNISHED A RETURN DISCOVERS ANY OMISSION OR ANY WRONG STATEMENT THERE IN, HE MAY FURNISH A REVISED RETURN AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXP IRY OR ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR BEFORE T HE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. IN THE CASE OF TH E APPELLANT COMPANY, AFTER FURNISHING THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF IN COME, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THERE WAS AN OMISSION IN NOT ACCOUN TING FOR EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 90,97,755/- AND THEREFORE A RE VISED RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 20/04/2006 VIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO. 0060100013, DISCLOSING REVISED TOTAL LOSS AT RS. 2, 13,68,576/-. THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BEFORE FINALIZAT ION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPT ED THE SAID RETURN. IT IS PERTINENT MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS NOT EXPRESSLY PASSED ANY ORDER TREATING THE REVISED RET URN AS INVALID OR NON EST. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE SUBMITS THAT THE LEARNED AS SESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE SAID REVISED R ETURN OF INCOME WHILE I.T.A NO3187/ADH/2010 & C.O. NO. 13/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2004-05 PAGE NO DCIT(OSD)VS. CLARIS LIFE SCIENCES LTD. 6 FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER APPEAL. THE IMPLICATIONS OF FILING A REVISED RETURN ARE:- (A) ORIGINAL RETURN IS SUBSTITUTED FOR SUCH REVISED RETURN (B) ORIGINAL RETURN IS TREATED AS WITHDRAWN (C) REVISED RETURN IS TREATED AS BEING FURNISHED ON THE DATE OF ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FURNISHED. REFERENCE IS INVITED TO THE DECISION OF THE ALLAHAB AD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DHARAMPUR SUGAR MILLS LTD. V. CIT 90 ITR 23 6. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AND TOTAL INCOME SHOUL D HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF THE REVISED RETURN OF IN COME FILED AS MENTIONED ABOVE. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSES OF RS. 90 ,97,755/- PERTAINED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND WAS NOT CLAIME D IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AS DUE TO ACCOUNTING MISTAKE, THE SAME WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS. THE MISTAKE WAS DISCOV ERED ONLY WHILE FINALIZING THE ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31/03/20 05. THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED IN A.Y . 2005-06 AS THE LIABILITY IN RELATION TO SAID EXPENDITURE HAS ACCRU ED AND CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE DETAILS OF SUCH EXPENDITURE ARE AS UNDER:- (A) PURCHASE OF TRADING GOODS RS. 90,15,387/- (B) STORES & SPARES CONSUMED RS. 82,368 ----------------- TOTAL RS. 90,97,755/- ------------------ IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THAT ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT DECISIVE FACTORS IN DETEM INING THE ALLOWABILILTY OF A DEDUCTION. IT IS THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT THAT WOULD DECIDE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A DEDUCTION (KHERDARNAT H JUTE MILLS LTD. WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GMDC LIMITED). THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION I.E. PU RCHASES OF TRADING GOODS AND STORES AND SPARES CONSUMED ARE FU LLY ALLOWABLE IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AP PELLANT THEREFORE I.T.A NO3187/ADH/2010 & C.O. NO. 13/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2004-05 PAGE NO DCIT(OSD)VS. CLARIS LIFE SCIENCES LTD. 7 SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TAKING THE NET LOSS AT RS. 1,22,17,820/- AS PER THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED TO RS. 2,13,68,576/- AS PER THE R EVISED RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 20/04/2006. THE ASSESSING OFFICER O UGHT TO HAVE TAKEN THE FIGURE OF NET LOSS AT RS. 2,13,68,576/- A S PER THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME FIELD ON 20/04/2006. IT IS THEREF ORE PRAYED THAT THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER AP PEAL MAY PLEASE BE RECOMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE REVISED RETURN OF IN COME FILED ON 20/04/2006. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CONTENTIONS AS ABOVE, IT I S FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE VALIDITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME THE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF TR ADING GOODS AND STORES AND SPARES CONSUMED AMOUNTING TO RS. 90,97,7 55/- WHICH PERTAINED TO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND WHICH EXPEND ITURE HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY CLAIMING A REVISED RETURN WHICH EXPENDIT URE IS ADMISSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T. ACT, IS REQUIRED TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN COMPUTATION OF ITS TOTAL INCOME. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWE D NOW. 8. LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER REJECTED THESE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE; AND A PPELLANTS SUBMISSION. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT APPELLANT FI LED SO-CALLED REVISED RETURN AFTER THE TIME LIMIT HAS EXPIRED. SINCE THE SAID REVISED RETURN WAS FILED OUT OF TIME, IT WAS NON-EST RETURN. THIS MEANS THERE WAS NO REVISED RETURN FILED WITHIN LAW. HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF COETZE INDIA LTD VERSUS CIT 284 ITR 323 HAS HELD THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER TO ENTERTAIN A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OTHERWISE THAN BY FILING A REVISED RETURN. DISTINC TION WAS MADE BY THE HONOURABLE COURT FROM THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF N ATIONAL THERMAL POWER COMPANY LTD REPORTED IN 229 ITR 383 WHEREIN P OWERS OF TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254 OF IT ACT TO ENTERTAIN F OR THE FIRST TIME A POINT OF LAW, PROVIDED THE FACT ON THE BASIS OF WHI CH THE ISSUE OF LAW CAN BE RAISED BEFORE TRIBUNAL IS DISCUSSED. SINCE THIS DECISION CLEARLY DEBARS ASSESSING OFFICER FROM TAKING UP ANY ISSUE O THERWISE THAN BY I.T.A NO3187/ADH/2010 & C.O. NO. 13/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2004-05 PAGE NO DCIT(OSD)VS. CLARIS LIFE SCIENCES LTD. 8 WAY OF REVISED RETURN, ASSESSING OFFICER IS CORRECT IN LAW BY NOT ENTERTAINING APPELLANTS CLAIM OF EXPENSES. SINCE THERE WAS NO VALID CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SAME WAS NO T TO BE ENTERTAINED BY HIM. AS REGARDS RAISING SUCH ISSUE IN FIRST APPEAL, SINC E THIS GROUND IS NOT COMING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR RETURN O F INCOME, THE SAME CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED EVEN AT FIRST APPEAL STAGE. THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES IS NOT A LEGAL CLAIM BUT A CLAIM OF FACTS. IN MY OPINION SUCH A CLAIM CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED EVEN BY HON. ITAT UND ER SECTION 254 IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF N ATIONAL THERMAL POWER LTD, SINCE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS NOT ON PO INT OF LAW BUT PURELY ON FACTS, DETAILS OF WHICH IS NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SINCE APPELLANT HAS NOT JUSTIFIED WITH REASONS, ITS BELAT ED CLAIM, NO JUDICIAL DECISION SUPPORTS THE APPELLANTS BELATED CLAIM. I N VIEW THEREOF THIS GROUND OF THE APPELLANT IS REJECTED. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE RATIO OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CAS E OF GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED VS. CIT REPORTED IN (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) WAS LIMITED TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY ONLY TO ENTERTAIN CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OTHERWISE THAN A REVISED RETURN AND DID NOT IMPINGE ON THE POWER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, LD. CIT(A) WAS N OT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE HIM IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES OF RS. 90,97,554/- FOR MAKING THIS SUBMISSION HE PLACED RELIANCE OF THE HONBLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SYMPHONY COMFORT SYSTEMS LT D. IN TAX APPEAL NO. 97 OF 2010 DATED 29/11/2011. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE AUTHORITIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD AND CASE LAWS RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND FORCE IN THE C ONTENTION OF THE LEARNED I.T.A NO3187/ADH/2010 & C.O. NO. 13/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2004-05 PAGE NO DCIT(OSD)VS. CLARIS LIFE SCIENCES LTD. 9 COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SYMPHONY COMFORT SYSTEMS LTD. (SUPRA) RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN BY ASSESSEE ON MERITS. 9. C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED AND C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) ( D.K.TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 15/03/2013 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. - / CIT (A) 5. , ! , '# / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. $% &' / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ ( / ' ) ! , '# I.T.A NO3187/ADH/2010 & C.O. NO. 13/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2004-05 PAGE NO DCIT(OSD)VS. CLARIS LIFE SCIENCES LTD. 10 STRENGTHENED PREPARATION & DELIVERY OF ORDERS IN TH E ITAT 1) DATE OF TAKING DICTATION 06-03-2013 2) DIRECT DICTATION BY MEMBER STRAIGHT ON COMPUTER/LAPTOP/DRAGON DICTATE N.A. 3) DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACE BEFORE MEMBER 12-03-2013 4) DATE OF CORRECTION 13-03-2013 5) DATE OF FURTHER CORRECTION XXXX 6) DATE OF INITIAL SIGN BY MEMBERS 14-03-2013 7) ORDER UPLOADED ON 01-04-2013 8) ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD HAS BEEN ENCLOSED IN THIS FILE YES 9) ORDER SENT TO BENCH CLERK 15-03-2013