The DCIT, 3(1), V. M/s Shil Finance Servise Ltd.,

ITA 35/IND/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1447 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-10-2009
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2005
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K KARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: M C MEHTA; HITESH CHIMNANI CAS
• Keywords: Depreciation; Unabsorbed depreciation

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 12 I.T.A.NO. 35/IND/2005 M/S. SIEL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, INDORE IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH : INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI V.K. GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PAN NO. : N.A. I.T.A.NO. 35/IND/2005 A.Y. : 2000-01 DY. CIT, M/S. SIEL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, 3(1), VS (FORMERLY SHRIRAM AGRO TECH INDUSTRIES LIMITED), BHOPAL 4 TH FLOOR, SONI MANSION, 12-B, RATLAM KOTHI, INDORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.K.KARAN, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. C. MEHTA AND SHRI HITESH CHIMNANI, CAS DATE OF HEARING : 21.10.2009 O R D E R PER V.K. GUPTA, A.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 04.10.2004, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 00-01. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE ALSO PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. PAGE 2 OF 12 I.T.A.NO. 35/IND/2005 M/S. SIEL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, INDORE 3. IN THIS APPEAL, IN GROUND NO.1, THE REVENUE IS AGGR IEVED BY THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) DIRECTING THE A.O. TO ALLOW THE CARRY FORWARD OF THE LOSS OF RS. 2,83,85,937/-, DISALLOWED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER, WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT. 4. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE RETURNED INCOME W AS SHOWN NIL BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AFTER SETTING OFF BROUGHT F ORWARD LOSSES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2,83,85,937/-. THE A.O. REQUIRED THE AS SESSEE TO EXPLAIN REGARDING THE ELIGIBILITY OF SUCH SET OFF. THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE QUANTUM OF CARRY FORWARD LOSS AND UNABSORBED DEPREC IATION WAS SUBJECT TO PENDING ASSESSMENT/APPEALS FOR EARLIER YEARS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPANY WAS LIABLE TO PAY TAX ON BOOK PROFIT U/ S 115JA. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF ASSESSMENT O F EARLIER YEARS, WHICH, IN THE OPINION OF A.O., REVEALED THAT IN THE EARLIE R YEARS OF UNABSORBED LOSSES/DEPRECIATION HAD BEEN SET OFF UP TO ASSESSME NT YEAR 1999-2000. HENCE, THE COMPANY WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SET-OFF OF BROUGHT BUSINESS LOSS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE TWO COMPANIE S, NAMELY, SHRI RAM AGRO TECH PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND SIEL FINANCIA L SERVICES LIMITED, M/S. SIEL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED WAS M ERGED WITH M/S. SHRI RAM AGRO TECH INDUSTRIES LIMITED, WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.1996 I.E. RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE NAME OF SHRI RAM AGRO TECH INDUSTRIES LIMITED WAS CHANGED TO SIEL FI NANCIAL SERVICES PAGE 3 OF 12 I.T.A.NO. 35/IND/2005 M/S. SIEL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, INDORE LIMITED. IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE THAT THE ORDERS OF HON'BLE HIGH COURTS OF DELHI AND MADHYA PRADESH APPROVING THE AM ALGAMATION WERE RECEIVED SUBSEQUENT TO FILING OF RETURNS BY BOTH TH E COMPANIES SEPARATELY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. HOWEVER, REVISED RETUR N OF THE AMALGAMATED ENTITY WAS FILED ON 28.11.1997 DECLARIN G A LOSS OF RS.2,56,39,053/-, WHICH COMPRISED OF BUSINESS LOSS OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. THE A.O. NOTED THAT IN THE REVISED RE TURN, THREE WERE NO BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS OR UNABSORBED DEPRECI ATION PERTAINING TO ERSTWHILE SIEL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED AND UNABS ORBED DEPRECIATION AND BUSINESS LOSS BROUGHT FORWARD TO THE TUNE OF RS . 8,03,98,393/- AND RS. 8,68,35,217/- PERTAINED TO M/S. SHRI RAM AGRO TECH INDUSTRIES LIMITED. THE A.O. HELD THAT SUCH BUSINESS LOSS WAS NOT ELIGI BLE FOR CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS AS THE REVISED RETU RN I.E. RETURN FOR MERGED ENTITY WAS FILED BEYOND THE STATUTORY LIMIT, HENCE, VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER HELD THAT BUSI NESS ACTIVITIES AND PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES OF M/S. SHRI RAM AGRO TECH IN DUSTRIES LIMITED HAD BEEN CLOSED BEFORE AMALGAMATION AND THE AMALGAMATED ENTITY ( THE ASSESSEE ) BASICALLY CARRIED FORWARD THE LOSSES OF ERSTWHILE SHRI RAM AGRO TECH INDUSTRIES LIMITED MERELY FOR TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE SAME IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AFTER ITS DISPOSING OF THE FIXED AS SETS OF COMPANY AND HENCE, IN A. Y. 1999-2000, IT HAD NO FURTHER EXISTE NCE AND, THEREFORE, FOR PAGE 4 OF 12 I.T.A.NO. 35/IND/2005 M/S. SIEL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, INDORE THIS REASON, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SET OFF LOSSES PERTAINING TO SHRI RAM AGRO TECH INDUSTRIES LIMITED SUFFERED BY T HAT COMPANY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 TO 1997-98. AGGRIEVED BY TH IS, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER INTO APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ), WHEREIN THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE REGARDING THE STATUS OF BOTH THE COMPANIES INDEPENDENTLY, AND AMALGAMATION THEREOF AND CHANGE OF NAME OF NEW COMPANY. THE ATTENTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ALSO D RAWN TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 72 AS AMENDED WITH EFFECT FRO M 1.4.2000 TO ARGUE THAT SINCE THAT DATE IT WAS NOT REQUIRED THAT THE S AME BUSINESS SHOULD CONTINUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVAILING SET OFF OF EAR LIER YEARS LOSSES. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CARRY FORWARD AN D SET OFF OF SUCH BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF TH E LD. CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER :- I HAVE EXAMINED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE A.O. AS WEL L AS THE AR AND ALSO THE EXPLANATION DURING THE APPELLATE ST AGE. IT APPEARS THAT THERE HAS BEEN SOME CONFUSION REGARDIN G THE NAME OF THE COMPANY, LOSSES OF WHICH ARE AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY FOR SET OFF. IN CASE, THERE WERE LOSSES DULY ASSESSED FOR EARLIER YEARS AVAILABLE IN CASE OF SH RIRAM AGRO TECH INDUSTRIES LIMITED, WHICH WAS THE COMPANY BEIN G PAGE 5 OF 12 I.T.A.NO. 35/IND/2005 M/S. SIEL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, INDORE ASSESSED WITH THE A.O. AT BHOPAL AND WHOSE NAME HAS BEEN CHANGED TO SIEL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED WITH EFF ECT FROM 23.6.1998 THE APPELLANT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO SET OF F OF SUCH LOSSES UPTO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97. ONLY FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 ONE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PA SSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS IN RESPECT OF T HE COMPANY DELHI BASED COMPANY SUBSEQUENTLY MERGED. ACCORDINGLY, CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT FOR SET OF F OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES, AS PER ASSESSMENTS FOR THE COMPANY BASED AT BHOPAL, NAMELY, SHRIRAM AGRO TECH INDUSTRI ES LIMITED IS CORRECT. THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE AMALGAM ATING AND AMALGAMATED COMPANIES WERE MADE SEPARATELY UP T O THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97. IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO MENTION AT THIS JUNCTURE, THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 779 ON THE SUBJECT FINANCE ACT, 1 999, EXPLANATORY NOTES ON THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO DIR ECT TAXES QUOTED HERE UNDER :- (XXI) SECTION 72 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, RELA TING TO CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSS HAS BEEN AMENDED DELETING THE PROVISO TO CLAUSE (I) OF SUB SECTION ( 1) WHICH STIPULATED THAT THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION FOR WHIC H THE LOSS PAGE 6 OF 12 I.T.A.NO. 35/IND/2005 M/S. SIEL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, INDORE WAS COMPUTED HAS TO BE CONTINUED IN ORDER TO AVAIL CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF LOSS. WITH THIS OMISSION, BU SINESS LOSS CAN BE CARRIED FORWARD AND SET OFF EVEN IF THE ASSE SSEE IS ENGAGED IN A DIFFERENT BUSINESS. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE NARRATED THE FA CTS AND PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE ON FACTS. THEREAFTER, HE CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER OF AMALGAMATION WAS APPROVED BY THE CONCERNED HON'BLE HIGH COURTS ON 5.12.1997 AND ONLY THEREAFTER A CONSOLIDATED RETURN WAS FILED FOR THE AMALGAMATED ENTITY AND ORIGINAL RETURNS OF BOTH THE ENTITIES PRIOR TO SUCH AMALGAMATION HAD BEEN FILED WITHIN THE DUE DATE I.E . 28.11.1997. HENCE, THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80, AS THE RETURN OF NEW ENTITY HAD TO BE RELATED BACK TO THEIR SEPARATE RET URNS. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 72A WERE N OT AT ALL ATTRACTED, BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED ANY SET OFF OF UNABSORBED BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS OR UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF AMALGAMA TING COMPANY I.E. SIEL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED. HE FURTHER CONTEND ED THAT AS PER THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 72, NOW THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT OF SAME BUSINESS TO BE IN EXISTENCE TO CLAIM SET OFF OF SUC H CARRIED FORWARD LOSSES. PAGE 7 OF 12 I.T.A.NO. 35/IND/2005 M/S. SIEL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, INDORE 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. 9. IT IS NOTED THAT THE RETURN OF BOTH AMALGAMATING AN D AMALGAMATED COMPANY HAVE BEEN FILED WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD SPECIFIED U/S 139(1). IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT CONSOLIDATED RETU RN OF THE AMALGAMATED ENTITY HAS BEEN FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997- 98, AFTER AMALGAMATION BEING APPROVED BY THE CONCERNED HON'BLE HIGH COURTS . THUS, IN OUR OPINION, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE CANNO T BE EXPECTED TO DO AN IMPOSSIBLE THING I..E. FILING OF RETURN OF AMALGAMA TED ENTITY BEFORE IT IS COMING INTO LEGAL EXISTENCE AND, THEREFORE, SUCH RE TURN SHOULD RELATE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL RETURNS FILED BY THESE COMPANIES IN DIVIDUALLY. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ORIGINAL RETURNS HAVE BEEN FILED WITHI N THE TIME SPECIFIED U/S 139(1). HENCE, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO DEFAULT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80 AS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE ALSO FIND T HAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 72A ARE NOT APPLICABLE AS SUCH BROUGHT FORW ARD LOSSES PERTAIN TO AMALGAMATED COMPANY. IT IS NOTED THAT DUE TO AMENDM ENT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 72, IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE RE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT SAME BUSINESS I.E. BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF M/S. SHRI RAM AGRO TECH INDUSTRIES LIMITED SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONTINUED. IN V IEW OF THESE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION AS NARRATED ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THIS GRO UND OF THE REVENUE. PAGE 8 OF 12 I.T.A.NO. 35/IND/2005 M/S. SIEL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, INDORE 10. IN GROUND NO.2, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DE CISION OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1 LAKH M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF MISC. EXPENSES. 11. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURRED MISC. EXPENSES OF RS. 7,08,621/-, WHICH WERE SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD MANUFACTURING AND OTHER EXPENSES TOTALING TO RS. 25,37,816/-. THE A. O. DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 1 LAKH, WHICH INCLUDED DISALLOWANCES ON ACCO UNT OF THE ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF OUT OF SUCH MISC. EXPENSES AS INCURRED FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES. 12. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED SUCH DISALLOWANCE FOR THE REASON THAT THE A.O. HAD NOT POINTED OUT ANY EXPENS E IN A SPECIFIC MANNER, WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED AS INCURRED FOR N ON BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE REVENUE IS IN AP PEAL BEFORE US. 13. THE LD. DR NARRATED THE FACTS AND PLACED RELIANCE O N THE ORDER OF THE AO. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OT HER HAND, PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 14. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ISSUE ON HAND, WE FIND THAT IT IS A CASE OF DISALLOWANCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR SPECIFIC DEFECTS BEING POINTED OUT. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED SUCH ADDITI ON. THUS, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. PAGE 9 OF 12 I.T.A.NO. 35/IND/2005 M/S. SIEL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, INDORE 15. IN GROUND NO.3, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DE CISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,88 ,474/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF PRELIMINARY EXPENSES. 16. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE A.O. EXAMINED THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WRITE OFF OF PRELIMINARY EXPENS ES U/S 35-D IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND ON THAT BASIS, HE HELD THAT TH E IMPUGNED EXPENSES WERE NOT VERIFIABLE. HENCE, HE DISALLOWED THE SAME. 17. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT AMOUNT DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS NOT THE BASIS FOR DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 35-D AND NECESSARY ADJU STMENTS HAD BEEN MADE OUT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, IN THIS REGA RD, WHILE FILING THE RETURN. HENCE, SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS UNWARRANTED. T HE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE A.O. TO VERIFY THESE CLAIMS OF THE ASS ESSEE AND IF FOUND CORRECT, THEN, TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE. 18. THE LD. DR NARRATED THE FACTS AND PLACED RELIANCE O N THE ORDER OF THE AO. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OT HER HAND, PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 19. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A)S FINDINGS ARE CORRECT AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE AS HE HAS DI RECTED THE A.O. TO VERIFY THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE ALSO. THE SAME IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. PAGE 10 OF 12 I.T.A.NO. 35/IND/2005 M/S. SIEL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, INDORE 20. IN GROUND NO.4, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DE CISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO ALLOW THE DEPRE CIATION OF RS. 5,01,039/-, WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER FOR THE REASONS THAT THIS HAD BEEN CLAIMED ON THE PLANT AND MACHINERY, WHERE FROM LEASE INCOME WAS EARNED AND SUCH INCOME WAS AS SESSABLE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, HENCE, THE DEPRECIATION WAS NOT ALLOWABLE. 21. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, HELD THAT LEASE RENT HAD BEEN EARNED DURING YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION AND THESE ASSETS HAD BEEN OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, T HE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWABLE. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 22. THE LD. DR NARRATED THE FACTS AND PLACED RELIANCE O N THE ORDER OF THE AO. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OT HER HAND, PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 23. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. 24. IT IS NOTED THAT THE A.O. HAS DISALLOWED THE IMPUGN ED DEPRECIATION FOR THE REASON THAT HE WAS OF THE OPIN ION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF SUCH INCOM E ONLY U/S 56(1) AND U/S 57(III). HOWEVER, SUCH DEPRECIATION IS CLEARLY ALLOWABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 57(II). HENCE, WE HOLD THAT T HE ORDER OF THE LD. PAGE 11 OF 12 I.T.A.NO. 35/IND/2005 M/S. SIEL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, INDORE CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN LAW. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPE AL OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 25. IN GROUND NO. 5, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE D IRECTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE A.O. TO VERIFY THE RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001- 02 AND TO DELETE THE ADDITION WAS RS. 14,78,620/-, WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS HAVING BEEN OFFERED IN ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2001-02. 26. THE LD. DR NARRATED THE FACTS AND PLACED RELIANCE O N THE ORDER OF THE AO. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OT HER HAND, PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 27. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. 28. IT IS NOTED THAT, IN FACT, THIS INCOME WAS TO BE IN CLUDED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS INAD VERTENTLY NOT SO INCLUDED, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE SAME AS ITS INCOME IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. THUS, THERE IS NO BASIS FO R INCLUDING THIS SUM AS INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THAT TOO WITHOUT EXCLUDING IT FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE YEAR IN WHICH IT HAS B EEN OFFERED. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN LAW. HENCE, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ALSO. PAGE 12 OF 12 I.T.A.NO. 35/IND/2005 M/S. SIEL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, INDORE 29. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2009. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (V. K. GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2009. CPU* 511D12