M/s. Nova Publications, Jalandhar V. The Addl. Commissioner of Incomet-ax, Jalandhar

ITA 365/ASR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 36520914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIK CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: R D SHARMA
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.365(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 PAN :AABFN1358B M/S. NOVA PUBLICATIONS VS. ADDL. COMMR. OF INCOME- TAX, C-51, FOCAL POINT, RANGE-II, JALANDHAR. JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.367(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 DY. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX, VS. M/S. NOVA PUBLICATION S, RANGE-II, JALANDHAR. C-51, FOCAL POINT, JALANDHAR . (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY:SH. R.D. SHARMA, CA DEPARTMENT BY:SH. AMRIK CHAND, DR DATE OF HEARING:26/11/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:29/11/2012 ORDER PER BENCH ; THESE CROSS APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENU E ARISE FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR, DATED 04.07.2012 FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. ITA NO. 365(ASR)/2012 ITA NO. 367(ASR)/2012 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1. LD. CIT(A), JALANDHAR IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFI RMING AN ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON MAINTENANCE OF S TOCK DETAILS ON ARBITRARY AND EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATION & HAS THU S ERRED IN LAW AS WELL. 2. LD. CIT(A), JALANDHAR IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIR MING A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.65,000/- OUT OF EXPENSES ON ACCO UNT OF STAFF WELFARE, MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES, VEHICLE REPAIRS ET C. ON ARBITRARY & EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATION & HAS THUS ER RED IN LAW AS WELL. 3. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U /S 80IB OF RS.17,42,886/-, WHEN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM DED UCTION U/S 80IB IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BUT CLAIMED THE SAME D URING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS PE R SECTION 80A(5) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U /S 80IB OF RS.17,42,886/-, WHEN THE EXPLICIT PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 80A(5) OF THE ACT WERE VIOLATED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THAT IT IS PRAYED THAT ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) B E SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT REQUESTS FOR LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND OR ALTER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AN D DISPOSED OFF. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PAINTING AND PUBLISHING. THE ASSESSEE I S NOT MAINTAINING ANY ITA NO. 365(ASR)/2012 ITA NO. 367(ASR)/2012 3 STOCK REGISTER. THIS FACT IS ALSO REPORTED IN THE T AX AUDIT REPORT BY THE TAX AUDITORS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH LIST O F OPENING STOCK AND CLOSING STOCK AND THE BASIS OF VALUATION THEREOF AND WHY TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT. IT WAS SUBMI TTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 25.11.2008 THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY STOCK REGISTER AND THE LIST OF CLOSING STOCK IS PREPARED AT THE END OF THE YEAR AND THE SAME IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS. THE LIST OF THE CLOSING STOCK HAS NOT BEEN PRESERVED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED COMPLETE VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES AND SALES AND EXPENSES ETC. WHICH ARE VER IFIABLE. THEREFORE, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN FOR APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBM ITTED LIST OF OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK. THEREFORE, THE LIST WAS PREPARED AT THE END OF THE YEAR WHICH HAS BEEN MISPLACED LATER WAS NOT HELD TO BE B ELIEVABLE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION ON RECORD, THE AO INVOKED THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. THE AO FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTIMA TION OF GROSS PROFIT PREPARED A CHART FOR SALES AND GP PERCENTAGE OF 3 Y EARS AS MENTIONED AT PAGE 8 OF HIS ORDER AND FOUND THAT THE GP RATE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONSTANT IN THREE YEARS APPROXIMATELY AT 29%, THOUGH THERE IS G REAT VARIATION OF TURNOVER OF THREE UNITS. THERE IS ENORMOUS FLUCTUATION IN TH E CLOSING STOCK BEING REPORTED IN THE THREE YEARS IN ALL THE UNITS. THE P ERCENTAGE/RATIO OF CLOSING ITA NO. 365(ASR)/2012 ITA NO. 367(ASR)/2012 4 STOCK TO TURNOVER OF THE THREE UNITS HAS CONSTANTLY CHANGED, WHEREAS THE GROSS PROFIT PERCENTAGE RETURNED HAS THROUGHOUT REM AINED CONSTANT. THEREFORE, IT IS NEGATIVE FIGURE OF CLOSING STOCK R EPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING MANIPULATED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO ACHIEVE A CONSTANT GROSS PROFIT RATE. THE AO ACCORDINGLY ESTIMATED THE ADDITION OF RS.5 LACS AND ACCORDINGLY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS TO THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN ADDITION, THE AO OBSERVED THAT CERTAIN EXPENS ES LIKE STAFF WELFARE, MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES, VEHICLE REPAIR ETC. ARE INC URRED MAINLY IN CASH AND ARE NOT ENTIRELY VERIFIABLE. CONSIDERING THE QUANTU M OF THESE EXPENSES AND THEIR REASONABLENESS, AN ADDITION OF RS.1,30,000/- WAS MADE WHICH WAS APPROXIMATELY 10% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. R.D. SHARMA, CA ARGUED THAT THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF RS. 5 L ACS IS NOT JUSTIFIED, SINCE THE SAME DOES NOT HAVE ANY BASIS AND THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. NO SPEC IFIC FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN OR ANY SPECIFIC BASIS HAS BEEN GIVEN TO MAKE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS AS A TRADING ADDITION. ITA NO. 365(ASR)/2012 ITA NO. 367(ASR)/2012 5 7. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF STAFF WELF ARE, MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES, VEHICLE REPAIR ETC. NO SPECIFIC DEFECT HA S BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE AO AND THEREFORE, NO ADDITION CAN MADE ON THIS ACCO UNT. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR, SH. AMRIK CHAND, APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS REGARDS THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 145(3) OF T HE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY STOCK REGISTER IS NOT UNDER DISPUTE . EVEN THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. R.D. SHARMA COULD NOT CONTROVERT THESE FINDINGS OF THE AO, CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). MOREOVER, IN THE S UBMISSIONS MADE ON 25.11.2008, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY STOCK REGISTER, EVEN LIST OF CLOSING STOCK HAS NOT BEEN PRESERVED. INSPITE OF REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN, NO DETAILS OF OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK AND BASIS OF VALUATION PROVIDED HAVE BEEN GIVEN BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) OR EVEN BEFORE US. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INF IRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION O F THE AO FOR INVOCATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 365(ASR)/2012 ITA NO. 367(ASR)/2012 6 10. AS REGARDS THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME, THE AO HAS PREPARED A CHART OF ALL THE THREE UNITS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS AVAIL ABLE AT PAGE 8 OF THE ORDER AND THE AO HAS ANALYSED THE SAME AT PAGE 9 OF HIS O RDER WHERE IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MANIPULATED GP RATE BY SUBST ITUTING FIGURES OF CLOSING STOCK WITH PRE-CONCEIVED FIGURE OF GP RATE WHICH H AS BEEN MANIPULATED AND FIXED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THOUGH THE AO H AS NOT MENTIONED OR HAS NOT GIVEN ANY BASIS FOR QUANTUM OF ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS BUT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEAKAGE OF REVENUE C ANNOT BE RULED OUT. WHEN ASKED FROM THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WITH RE GARD TO THE GP RATE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING YEARS, NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD SPECIFICALLY EVEN BEFORE US. AS MENTIONED EA RLIER HEREINABOVE, THAT THOUGH THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY BASIS BUT THE ADDI TION OF RS. 5 LACS IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND POS SIBILITY OF LEAKAGE OF REVENUE, ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS HAS RIGHTLY BEEN MA DE BY THE AO, WHICH HAS RIGHTLY BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 11. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE OF STAFF WELFARE, M ISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES AND VEHICLE EXPENSES ETC; NO VOUCHERS HAVE BEEN PRO DUCED FOR VERIFICATION BEFORE THE AO AND ALL THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURR ED IN CASH. THEREFORE, THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED HAS NOT BEEN PROVED BY THE ITA NO. 365(ASR)/2012 ITA NO. 367(ASR)/2012 7 ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, LEAKAGE OF REVENUE CANNOT BE R ULED OUT. THE AO IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES HAS VERY REASONABLY DISALLOWED APPROXIMATELY 10% OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AT RS.1,30,000/-, WH ICH HAS RIGHTLY BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE FIND NO INFIRMITY I N THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 12. IN THE REVENUES APPEAL, THE BRIE FACTS ARE THA T THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON 25.11.2 008 CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA/80IB ON PROFIT OF UNIT-1 OF THE ASSESSEE F IRM, AMOUNTING TO RS.17,42,886/-. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLA IN THE UNIT IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED, WHETHER SEPARATE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE MAINTAINED FOR THAT UNIT, WHETHER THE PRE-CONDITION S FOR ADMISSIBILITY U/S 80IA/80IB WERE SATISFIED WITH EVIDENCE, WHY THE DED UCTION WAS NOT CLAIMED EARLIER AND WHY THE DEDUCTION SHOULD NOT BE DISALLO WED FOR THE SAME REASON AS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS RUNNING TWO UNITS, UNIT-1 AND UNIT-II. IT WAS S UBMITTED THAT THE UNIT-1 WAS A SMALL SCALE UNDERTAKING AND FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB. IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE MAINTAINED FOR BOTH THE UNITS AND SEPARATE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEETS WERE ALSO MAINTAINE D. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED ITA NO. 365(ASR)/2012 ITA NO. 367(ASR)/2012 8 THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80IB HAD BEEN DISALLOWED FOR THE A.Y. 2001-02, BUT WAS ALLOWED IN APPEAL BY CIT(A), JALANDHAR. THE DEPARTM ENTS APPEAL WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE AO HAD DISALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB I N ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 ALSO, BUT THE SAME HAD BEEN ALL OWED BY THE CIT(A). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE STARTED PRODUCTION ON 18.11.1996 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 1997-98 AND WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB UPTO A.Y. 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DEDUCTION HAD NOT B EEN CLAIMED IN THE RETURN INADVERTENTLY. THE AO BEING NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSEES REPLY NOTED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05, FOLLOWING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04, IT HAD BEEN HELD THAT THE UNI T-1 OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A SMALL SCALE UNDERTAKING FROM DEC., 2002. FOLLOWI NG THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04, THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA. IT WAS ALSO NOTED BY THE AO THA T IT HAD BEEN HELD IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 THAT THE PROFIT OF THE DELH I UNIT SHOULD BE APPORTIONED TO BOTH THE UNITS IN THE RATIO OF TURNO VER AS PER ESTABLISHED ACCOUNTING NORMS, IF THE DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWABLE. A CCORDING TO THE AO THIS FACT WAS NOT TAKEN WHILE ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CL AIM FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 AND 2004-05, AGAINST WHICH THE DEPARTMENT WAS IN AP PEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. THE AO ALSO HELD THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSE E THROUGH A LETTER DURING ITA NO. 365(ASR)/2012 ITA NO. 367(ASR)/2012 9 THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN VI EW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323. FOR THIS REASON ALSO THE ASSESSEES CL AIM WAS HELD TO BE NOT ALLOWABLE. 13. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE MADE THE SU BMISSIONS WHICH WERE SENT FOR THE COMMENTS OF THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) AFT ER RECEIVING THE COMMENTS OF THE AO, VIDE PARA 4 TO 4.2 OF HIS ORDER ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) GIVEN IN PARA 4 TO 4.2 WHICH IS A REASONED ORDER AND THE AO ADMITTED THAT SUCH CLAI M FURNISHED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS ENTERTAINED IN VIEW OF T HE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RA MCO INTERNATIONAL (2011) 211 ITR 306 AND DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT I N THE CASE OF GOETZ (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), WHICH HAS BEEN DISTINGUISHED. ON MERIT ALSO, WE FIND THAT THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY T HE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 4 TO 4.2 ARE WELL REASONED AND REQUIRES NO INTERFERENCE. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 4 TO 4.2 ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY. AS POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN HIS COMMENTS DATED 29.7.2011, THE ASSESSE E HAD DULY ITA NO. 365(ASR)/2012 ITA NO. 367(ASR)/2012 10 FURNISHED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND FORM NO.10 CCB DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF D EDUCTION U/S 80IB. THE AO HAD ALSO ADMITTED THAT SUCH A CLAIM FURNISHE D DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MAY BE ENTERTAINED IN VIEW O F THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. RAMCO INTERNATIONAL (SUPRA) IN WHICH THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF GOETZ (INDIA) LTD VS. CIT (SUPRA) HAD BEEN DISTINGUISHED. HENCE, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB/80IA IS HEL D TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION EVEN WHEN MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4.1. AS TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE LD. AO HAS A DMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT WAS IN APPEAL IN DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YE ARS IN VARIOUS ISSUES BEFORE VARIOUS APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. THE AP PELLANT HAS SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE COMBINED ORDER OF ITAT, AMR ITSAR BENCH DATED 17.12.2008 IN THE ASSESSES CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 AND 2004- 05 IN IT NOS. 317(ASR)/2007 AND 187(ASR)/2007 RESPE CTIVELY. IN THIS DECISION THE DEPARTMENT HAD APPEALED AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A) ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA, CONSIDERING THE ASSESS EES UNIT-1 FIRM AS SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIAL UNIT, INSPITE OF THE FACT TH AT THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRY HAD CONFIRMED IN DEC., 2002 THAT THE UNIT HAD BECAME A MSI UNIT . THE HONBLE ITAT HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL O F THE DEPARTMENT FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEY HAVE NOTED THAT THOUGH INITIALLY A CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED BY INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT WIT H REGARD TO UNIT-1, STATING IT TO BE AN MSI UNIT, AN AMENDED CERTIFICAT E WAS FURNISHED SHOWING IT TO BE AN SSI UNIT. SINCE THE AMENDED CER TIFICATE HAD BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS AND IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE AMENDED CER TIFICATE WAS WRONG, THE HONBLE ITAT UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA TO THE ASSESSEE. 4.2. SINCE THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR RELATING TO THIS DEDUCTION ARE THE SAME IN THE A.YS. 2003-04 AND 200 4-05 ON WHICH THE AO HAS RELIED, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECIS ION OF THE ITAT IN THEIR ORDER DATED 17.12.2008 (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE IS HELD TO BE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IN RESPECT OF ITS U NIT-1, SINCE IT IS A SMALL SCALE INDUSTRY. FURTHER, A.Y. 2006-07 IS THE 10 TH YEAR OF THE CLAIM OF THIS DEDUCTION FOR WHICH THE DEDUCTION IS ADMISSIBLE. THE AOS CONTENTION REGARDING PROFIT APPORTIONMENT OF THE DELHI OFFICE PROFIT IS NOT RELEVANT IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YE AR SINCE THE DELHI ITA NO. 365(ASR)/2012 ITA NO. 367(ASR)/2012 11 OFFICE HAD INCURRED A LOSS DURING THE YEAR AS PER T HE ACCOUNTS OF THAT OFFICE FURNISHED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. NO OTHE R REASON FOR DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY TH E AO. HENCE, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IN RESPECT OF UNIT-1 IS ALLOWED. GROUND NO.1 OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 15. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE GROU NDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSED IN ITA NO.365(ASR)/2012 AND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA N O.367(ASR)/ 2012 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29TH NOVEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 29TH NOVEMBER, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:M/S. NOVA PUBLICATIONS, JALANDHAR. 2. THE ADDL. CIT R-1/DCIT/ CIR.11, JALANDHAR. 3. THE CIT(A)JALANDHAR 4. THE CIT, JALANDHAR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL