ACIT, Jaipur V. RAJASHTN STATE BEVERAGE CORP. LTD., Jaipur

ITA 32/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99476 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKUL KHURANA DHK
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Bad and doubtful debts; Competent authority
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 234B

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KN O] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YA DAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 32/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 . ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGE CORPORATION LTD., 1 ST FLOOR, D-BLOCK, VITTA BHAWAN, JANPATH, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AACCR 9522 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 35/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 . M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGE CORPORATION LTD., 1 ST FLOOR, D-BLOCK, VITTA BHAWAN, JANPATH, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AACCR 9522 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI M.S. MEENA (CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAKUL KHURANA (ADVOCATE) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 26.10.2015. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 6/11/2015. 2 ITA NOS. 32 & 35/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. ACIT/DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES CORPN., JAI PUR. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THESE ARE TWO CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AN D ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-II, JAIPUR DATED 2 6.10.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE AS UNDER :- REVENUES GROUND : ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN I) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 26.00 CRORES MADE BY T HE AO BY DISALLOWING THE PAYMENT OF PRIVILEGE FEES WITHOU T APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT SAID PAYMENT WAS APPLICA TION OF INCOME OR APPROPRIATION OF PROFIT AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE A CAPITAL NATURE. II) DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EX PENSES THOUGH THE ACCOUNTING POLICIES OF THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY DOES NOT ALLOW THE SAME. III) DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 17,80,765/- MADE ON ACCOUN T OF DEPOSITING THE PF/ESI PAYMENT THE PRESCRIBED TIME DESPITE THE FACT THAT AS PER SECTION 36(1)(VA) EMPL OYEES CONTRIBUTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN TIME AS PRESCRIBED IN THE RELEVANT LAW. SECTION 43B PERMITS DELAYED PAYMENT IF PAID BEFORE FILING OF ROI AS PER SECTION 139(1) IN CASE OF EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION N OT IN THE CASE OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION. 3 ITA NOS. 32 & 35/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. ACIT/DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES CORPN., JAI PUR. IV) ALLOWING THE WRITE OFF OF BAD DEBTS IN WHICH BUSINE SS CONNECTION WAS NOT PROVED. ASSESSEES GROUNDS : 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-II, JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN UPHOL DING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 18,03,303/- U/S 43B OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-II, JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN UPHOL DING THE DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF UNRECONCILED BANK BALANCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 11,91,89 1/- AND PERTAINING TO THE PERIOD 2005-06 WHICH WAS WRIT TEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE CORPORATION IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S. 3. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-II, JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN UPHOL DING THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CONCERN OF RAJASTHAN STATE GOVERNMENT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFAC TURING AND TRADING OF INDIAN MADE FOREIGN LIQUOR (IMFL)/BEER IN THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN. IT WAS GRANTED EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE FOR WHOLESALE TRADE OF IMFL AND BEER IN THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RAJASTHA N EXCISE ACT, 1950 BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILE D ON 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 4 ITA NOS. 32 & 35/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. ACIT/DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES CORPN., JAI PUR. 2009 WHICH WAS SCRUTINIZED AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPL ETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) AT RS. 27,30,17,560/-. 3. REGARDING THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE GROUND OF REVENUE PERTAINING TO P AYMENT OF PRIVILEGE FEES AMOUNTING TO RS. 26.00 CRORES HAS BEEN ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.YS. 2006-07, 07-08 AND 08-09. THE RELEVA NT FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 2007-08 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 21.1 0.2011 IN ITA NO.540/JP/2011 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 14. THE LD. CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE O BSERVATION DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER OBSERVING AS UNDER :- IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS GRAN TED EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE FOR WHOLESALE TRADE OF INDIAN M ADE FOREIGN LIQUOR & BEER IN THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN FOR THE FIN ANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RAJASTHAN EXCIS E ACT, 1950 BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE SAID ACT. IN EXERC ISE OF ITS POWERS UNDER SECTION 30 AND 42(C) OF THE RAJASTHAN EXCISE ACT, 1950, THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE SAID ACT HA S LEVIED A PRIVILEGE FEES OF RS. 15 CRORES FOR FY 2006-07 VIDE ITS ORDER NO.F.4(5)FD/EX/2005 DATED 28.3.2007 UPON THE APPELL ANT COMPANY IN LIEU OF GRANTING THE SAID PRIVILEGE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF HONBLE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR FOR AY 2006-07, I DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 15 CRORES. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 15. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FEEL THAT IS SUE BEFORE US STANDS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF THE 5 ITA NOS. 32 & 35/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. ACIT/DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES CORPN., JAI PUR. ASSESSEE FOR EARLIER YEARS AND HENCE WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A). 3.1. THE LD. D/R RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND MENTIONED THAT EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL H AS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE AND THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT. 3.2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF COO RDINATE BENCH FOR A.YS. 2006-07, 07-08 AND 08-09. RESPECTFULLY FOLLO WING THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH IN EARLIER YEARS, THE GROUND RAISE D BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 4. REGARDING THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL OF REVENUE , THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED AN AMOU NT OF RS. 8,82,495/- AS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOU NT AND THE SAME IS NOT ALLOWABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SINCE TH E ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPEC T OF PRIOR PERIOD ITEMS SHOWN IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, IT IS THE POSIT ION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IF THE NET RESULT OF PRIOR PERIOD ITEMS IS POSITIVE, T HE SAME IS DULY OFFERED AS INCOME IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS AND IF THE NET RESUL T IS IN NEGATIVE, THE SAME 6 ITA NOS. 32 & 35/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. ACIT/DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES CORPN., JAI PUR. HAS BEEN CLAIMED IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS AND THE SA ID POLICY HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLANT OVER THE YEA RS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT WHILE ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WHICH H AVE BEEN FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE AO TOWARDS THE CLAIM OF THESE EXPENSES. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE, WE DO NOT FEEL THAT THERE IS NEED TO INTE RFERE IN THE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A) AND HENCE THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS ALSO DI SMISSED. 5. REGARDING GROUND NO. 3, THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN A POSITION THAT DELAY IN DEPOSIT OF PF/ESI OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION BEY OND THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT IS HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF TH E IT ACT. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT PAY MENTS OF PF/ESI WERE DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FI LING OF RETURN FOR THE SUBJECT YEAR AND THE LD. A/R HAS RELIED ON THE ORDE R OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VINAY CEMENT, 213 CTR 268 (SC). 5.1. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD. THIS BENCH HAS BEEN TAKING A CONSISTENT POSITION TH AT WHERE THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF PF/ESI HAS BEEN DEPOSITED BEFORE T HE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE SAME SHOULD BE DULY ALLOW ED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE SAID POSITION SHALL APPLY BOTH IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYEES 7 ITA NOS. 32 & 35/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. ACIT/DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES CORPN., JAI PUR. CONTRIBUTION AS WELL AS THE EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION . IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE AND FOLLOWING THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VINAY CEMENT (SUPRA), THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. REGARDING THE 4 TH GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE, IT IS NOTE D THAT THE AO DISALLOWED RS. 12,79,968/- WHICH REPRES ENTS DEBIT BALANCES OF SUPPLIERS WHICH REMAINED OUTSTANDING SINCE 2005-06 TO 2007-08 AND WHICH HAVE BEEN WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF TH E APPELLANT. AS PER THE AO, THE SAME WERE NOT ALLOWABLE TO THE APPELLANT AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY/BUSINESS CONNECTION FOR G IVING THE SAID ADVANCES. 6.1. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD . CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE ADVANCES TO SUPPLIERS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES ONLY BUT LIQUOR WAS NOT RECEIVED. THE LD. CIT (A) FOLLOWED THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN T.R. F. LTD. VS. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THE BA D DEBT IS WRITTEN OFF AS NOT RECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED. IN THE INSTANT CASE IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THIS DEB IT BALANCES HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF TH E APPELLANT. ACCORDINGLY WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) WH O HAS DELETED THE SAID 8 ITA NOS. 32 & 35/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. ACIT/DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES CORPN., JAI PUR. ADDITION FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF T.R.F. LTD., HENCE THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. 7. NOW COMING TO THE FIRST GROUND RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN UPH OLDING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 18,03,303/- UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE IT ACT. AS PER THE APPELLANT THIS AMOUNT PERTAINS TO PERMIT FEES AS WELL AS SURCHARGE ON EXCISE DUTY. AS REGARDS PERMIT FEES, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOU NT OF RS. 9,09,692/- WHICH HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE AO WAS NOT CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AT THE FIRST INSTANCE. IN THIS REGARD, ON PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET AND TAX AUDIT REPORT WHICH IS ON RECORD, IT IS NOTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,10,27,614/- HAS BEEN DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AGAINST WHICH THE APPELLANT HAD ALREADY MADE A PAYM ENT OF RS. 1,10,38,269/- WHICH HAS ONLY BEEN CLAIMED IN THE RE TURN OF INCOME. THE AO INSTEAD OF CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,10,27,61 4/- WHICH WAS DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT HAS CONSIDERED THE CLOSING PROVISION FIGURE OF PERMIT FEES AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2009 AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,19,47,961/- WHICH AFTER CONSIDERING THE PAYMENT OF RS. 1,10,38,269/-, HAS RESULTED IN A CONSEQUENT DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 9,09,692/-. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE, WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AND DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 9 ITA NOS. 32 & 35/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. ACIT/DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES CORPN., JAI PUR. 9,09,692/- WHICH WAS NOT CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT A T FIRST PLACE. HENCE THE QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE DOES NOT ARISE. SIMILARLY , REGARDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 8,93,611/- TOWARDS SURCHARGE ON EXCISE DUTY, THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE SAME REPRES ENTS THE CLOSING PROVISION AS ON 31.3.2009 AND DURING THE YEAR, NO A MOUNT WAS CHARGED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 8,93,611/- IS ALSO DELETED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPE LLANT. HENCE, THE GROUND NO. 1 OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. REGARDING THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSES SEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DIS ALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO OF UN-RECONCILED BANK BALANCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 1,91,891/- FOR THE PERIOD 2005-06 WHICH WAS WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSE E IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE AO IN HIS ORDER HAS DISALLOWED THE SA ID AMOUNT SAYING THAT NO DETAILS OF THE AFORESAID DIFFERENCE HAVE BEEN GI VEN BY THE APPELLANT AND HAS NOT PROVED THAT THE SAID DIFFERENCE HAS ARISEN DUE TO REVENUE TRANSACTIONS, HENCE HE DISALLOWED WRITING OFF OF RS . 11,91,891/-. IN ITS SUBMISSION BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THE APPELLANT HA S STATED THAT IT TOOK NECESSARY AND POSSIBLE EFFORTS TO RECOVER/RECONCILE THE BALANCES. INSPITE OF ALL THESE POSSIBLE EFFORTS, THE DIFFERENCES HAVE NO T BEEN RECONCILED. IN VIEW 10 ITA NOS. 32 & 35/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. ACIT/DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES CORPN., JAI PUR. OF THE FACTS, THE MANAGEMENT DECIDED TO WRITE OFF. HOWEVER, IF IN FUTURE IT IS RECOVERED/RECONCILED THE SAME WILL BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS. WHILE CONFIRMING TH E DISALLOWANCE, THE LD. CIT (A) IN HIS ORDER MENTIONED THAT THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. A/R THAT THESE BALANCES ARE SORT OF DEBTS WHICH CAN BE CLAIMED TOM ORROW IS NOT TENABLE. THE FACT IS THAT THE AMOUNTS ARE NOT DEBTS BUT BALA NCES WITH THE APPELLANT, AND BELONG TO THE APPELLANT AND IN MY VIEW SHOULD B E OFFERED FOR TAXATION INSTEAD OF BEING WRITTEN OFF SPECIALLY WHEN NO PROO FS HAVE BEEN GIVEN THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE TAXED EARLIER. 9. WE HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE MANAGEMENT TOOK A CONSCIOUS DECISION TO WRITE OFF ITS BALANCES MAINTAINED WITH THE BANK WHICH WERE NOT GETTING RECONCILED FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. SO WHERE THE BALANCES MAINTAINED WITH THE BANK WHICH BELONG TO T HE ASSESSEE ARE WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE H AS TO CHARGE THE SAME AS AN EXPENSE/LOSS IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE SAME WOULD HAVE BEEN REPORTED AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. IN ANY CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED T HAT IF IN FUTURE IT IS ABLE TO RECOVER THESE BANK BALANCES, IT WILL OFFER THE S AME FOR TAX. WE DO NOT 11 ITA NOS. 32 & 35/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. ACIT/DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES CORPN., JAI PUR. BELIEVE THE REVENUE IS AT A LOSS BY SUCH CLAIM AND SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. IS DELETED AND NECESSARY RELIEF IS GRANTED TO THE ASSE SSEE. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 10. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONSEQUENTIAL I N NATURE AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 11. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED WH ILE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06/11/2015. SD/- SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH FOE FLAG ;KNO (R.P.TOLANI) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 06/11/ 2015 DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- THE ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT- M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES C ORPN. LTD., JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 32 & 35/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 12 ITA NOS. 32 & 35/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. ACIT/DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES CORPN., JAI PUR.