U.P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd., Lucknow V. DCIT, Lucknow

ITA 421/LKW/2004

• Counselvise Citation: 42123714 RSA 2004
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 1988-1989
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2004
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B P YADAV
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 43B; 148

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.421, 422 & 423/LKW/04 A.YRS.:88 - 89, 89 - 90 & 90 - 91 & I.T.A. NO.05/LKW/03 A.Y.:92 - 93 & I.T.A. NO.333/LKW/12 A.Y.:08 - 09 M/S U.P. STATE BRIDGE CORPN. LTD., 16, MADAN MOHAN MALVIYA MARG, LUCKNOW. PAN:AAACV3258K VS. DY.C.I.T., RANGE - 1, LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI B. P. YADAV, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, CIT, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 08/01/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 3 0 /01/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. OUT OF THIS BUNCH OF FIVE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE , THREE APPEALS ARE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S 88 - 89, 89 - 90 & 90 - 91, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THREE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A) - I, LUCKNOW ALL DATED 22/03/2004. ONE APPEAL IS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 92 - 93, WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) - I, LUCKNOW DATED 30/09/2002. THE REMAINING APPEAL I S FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) - II, LUCKNOW DATED 25/04/2012. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE T HREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S 88 - 89, 89 - 90 & 90 - 91 BECAUSE IT WAS AGREED BY BOTH THE SIDES THAT IN THESE THREE YEARS, ONLY ONE COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED BEING TAXABILITY OF EXCHANGE VARIATION RESERVE FOR UNITS SITUATED ABROAD . 3. IT WAS FAIRLY AGREED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AS PER PARA 5.2 ON PAGE 11 OF HIS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 88 - 89. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THI S TRIBUNAL ORDER IS IN I.T.A. NO.1592/ALLD/96 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 82 - 83 AND THE COPY OF THE SAME IS AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK. 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WHEN LEAR NED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF AGREED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE BY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL DECISION, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN T HE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ANY OF THESE THREE YEARS. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE SE THREE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 7. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 92 - 93 IN I.T.A. NO.05/LKW/03. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT GROUND N O. 1 & 8 ARE GENERAL. REGARDING GROUND NO. 2, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS THE SAME AS INVOLVED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 88 - 89, 89 - 90 AND 90 - 91 AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE SAME TRIBUNAL ORDER. HENCE, GROUND NO. 2 IS REJECT ED BEING COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL ORDER AND GROUND NO. 1 & 8 ARE HELD TO BE GENERAL WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. 3 8. GROUND NO. 3 IS AS UNDER: 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN DISALLOWING 100% DEP. ON SHU TTERING COSTING RS.1,52,01,847/ - ONLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR THE A.Y.1995 - 96. WHILE DOING SO, SHE HAS IGNORED THE FOLLOWING FACTS AND THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES - (A) THAT THE SHUTTERING/OR SHUTTERING MATERIAL WAS PLANT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT) IN HARIJAN EVAM NIRBAL VARG ACAS NIGAM LTD. (1998) 229 I.T.R. 776 (ALLD.).THIS DECISION WAS FOLLOWED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN M/S HARBHAJAN SARBJEET & ASSOCIATES (AURANGABAD) LUCKNOW VS DCIT IN I.T.A.NO. 1 456/ALLD/90. (B) THAT THE COST OF EACH SHUTTERING ADMITTEDLY WAS BELOW RS.5,000/ - , WHICH WAS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO TO SEC. 32(1) OF I.T. ACT,1961. (C) THAT PART OF THE SHUTTERING WHICH WAS TOTALLY EXHAUSTED BY USE WAS FULLY WRITT EN OFF IN PROFIT & LOSS A/C AND 100% DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED ON THE REMAINING PART WHICH THOUGH PUT TO USE, WAS STILL SERVICEABLE. 9. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS , IN WHICH, IT IS STATED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 46/LKW/2000 DATED 31.01.2011. THE COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IS ALSO ENCLOSED WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE RELEVANT PARA OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IS PA RA 9. 10. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND WE FIND THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE ON THE BASIS THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96 AS PER HIS ORDER DATED 05/05/2000. HE HAS REPRODUCED RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). BUT THE TRIBUNAL ORDER NOW CITED BEFORE US IS DATED 31.01.2011. HENCE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWI NG THIS TRIBUNAL 4 DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE . THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 12. GROUND NO. 4 IS AS UNDER: 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF RS.16,43,000/ - SO HELD TO BE ONLY A CONTINGENT LIABILITY FOR SALES TAX BY THE AUDITORS IN SCHEDULE N(1)(A) OF 'NOTES ON ACCOUNTS.' IT WAS CATEGORICALLY STATED BEFORE HER THAT NO SUCH AMOUNT WAS DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS A/C AND CLAIMED AS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. 13. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN AS PER NOTE, THE AMOUNT IS PAID BUT THE LIABILITY IS DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. COPY OF NOTES ALSO SUBMITTED WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. 14. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 15. WE HAVE CONSIDER ED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IT IS STATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE 4 THAT IT IS MENTIONED IN SCHEDULE N I.E. NOTES ON ACCOUNTS THAT THE PAYMENT OF SALES TAX OF RS.16.43 LACS ON WORKS EXECUTED IN RESPECT OF VIJAYWADA UNIT ARE DISPUTED IN APPEAL AND THE SALES TAX LIABILITY WAS NOT ASCERTAINED. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THIS AMOUNT IS INCLUDED IN CURRENT LIABILITY AND PROVISIONS DUE TO UNASCERTAINED NATURE OF LIABILITY. ON THIS BASIS , HE MADE DISALLOWANCE. IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHEN ADMITTEDLY , THE AMOUNT OF THE SALES TAX WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE AS PER SECTION 43B OF THE ACT IN THE YEAR OF PAYMENT AND IF AT ALL , AT ANY POINT OF TIME, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVES THE REFUND, THE SAME IS LIA BLE TO TAX IN THE YEAR OF REFUND. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THIS DISALLOWANCE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 16. GROUND NO. 5 IS AS UNDER 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/ - OUT OF TRAVELLING & CONVEYANCE 5 CHARGES ON AD HOC BASIS IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE ON TRAVELLING & CONVEYANCE WAS ACCORDING TO T.A. RULES OF GOVERNMENT OF U.P. SHE ALSO IGNORED THE FACT THAT A SIMILAR AD HOC ADDITION WAS DELETED BY CIT(A) IN A.Y.89 - 90. 17. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE SUBMISSIONS THAT IT IS AN AD HOC DISALLOWANCE AND HENCE SHOULD BE DELETED. 18. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 19. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND WE FIND THAT THE BASIS OF DISALLOWANCE IS MERELY THIS THAT THE INCREASE IN WORK DONE IS 4% AND 9% WHEREAS THE INCREASE IN TRAVELLING EXPENSES IS 14%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT EVEN A SINGLE INSTANCE OF ANY TRAVELLING EXPENSES WHICH IS NOT FOR BUSINESS PURP OSE AND IS FOR PERSONAL USE. SUCH AD HOC DISALLOWANCE, WITHOUT ANY BASIS, IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE SAME. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 20. GROUND NO. 6 IS AS UNDER: 6. L EARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DIS - ALLOWANCE OF RS. 9,06,490/ - BEING CONTRIBUTION TO U.P. GOVT. PENSION FUND U/S 43B OF I.T.ACT, 1961 IGNORING THE FACTS THAT THE ABOVE SECTION DID NOT APPLY TO SUCH A PAYMENT AND THAT A SIMILAR ADDITION HAD ALREADY BEEN DELETED BY CIT(A) IN A.Y. 95 - 96. 21. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, IN WHICH, IT IS STATED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 46/LKW/2000 DATED 31.01.2011. THE COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IS ALSO ENCLOSED WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE RELEVANT PARA OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IS PARA 16.4. 22. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 6 23. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARA 10 THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITION U/S 43 B FOR RS.22,27,700/ - , RS.41,13,802 & RS.9,06,490/ - OUT OF PF, BONUS AND PENSION RESPECTIVELY. HE HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT AS PER TAX AUDIT REPORT , THESE ITEMS WERE DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT BUT WERE NOT PAID DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. HE HAS UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF THESE THREE AMOUNTS. 24. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE GROUND ONLY FOR ONE ITEM OF RS.9,06,490/ - IN RESPECT OF PENSION FUND AND NO DISPUTE IS RAISED BEFORE US FOR REMAINING TWO ITEMS. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.9,06,490/ - WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT YEAR OR BEFORE FILING OF THE RETURN. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). AS PER PARA 16.4 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER CITED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, IT WAS HELD THAT SINCE THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BEFORE FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME, THE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. HENCE, THIS TRIBUN AL DECISION IS OF NO HELP TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 25. GROUND NO. 7 IS AS UNDER: 7. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF, THE DETERMINED LOSS (RS.3 ,11,03,887/ - AS PER ORDER DT. 4.2.97) AGAINST PROFITS IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. SHE FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT IT WAS THE RETURN FILED OH 11.2.93 WHICH WAS TREATED AS DEFECTIVE AND NONEST. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE ON THE RETURN FILED ON 22.1 1.94 SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS A VALID RETURN. 7 26. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THAT THE RETURN IS FILED ULTIMATELY U/S 148 BY DECLARING LOSS OF R S. 808,87,075 AND ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED U/S 148/143 (3) AT A LOSS OF RS. 311,03,887. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS RETURN FILED U/S 148 IS NOT DEFECTIVE AND HENCE CARRY FORWARD OF LOSS AS ASSESSED U/S 148 SHOULD BE ALLOWED. LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT ( A). RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF BAJORIA PROPERTIES (P) LTD. AS REPORTED IN 54 TTJ 107. COPY OF JUDGMENT IS ALSO ENCLOSED WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. 26.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT TH IS ISSUE WAS DECIDED AS PER PARA 12 OF LEARNED CIT(A). IN THIS PARA , HE HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ALLOWED CARRY FORWARD OF THE LOSSES FOR SET OFF IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. HE HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TREATED AS DEFECTIVE AND NON - EST. T HE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT PRESSED THE GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE RETURN TREATED AS INVALID. ON THIS BASIS, HE HELD THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, THE CARRY FORWARD OF THE LOSSES CANNOT BE ALLOWED. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THESE FINDING S OF LEARNED CIT(A) . 26.2 REGARDING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, WE WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT AS HELD BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SUN ENGIN EERING 198 ITR 297 , THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE REVENUE AND NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WHEN CARRY FORWARD OF LOSS IS NOT ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DEFECTIVE, IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. REGARDING THE TRIBUNAL DECISION CITED BEFORE US BEING RENDERED IN THE CASE OF BAJORIA PROPERTIES (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT THIS JUDGMENT IS OF NO HELP TO THE 8 ASESSEE. IN THAT CA SE, THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IS ON THIS BASIS THAT THE A.O. HAD POWER TO GRANT EXTENSION FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND SUCH EXTENSION WAS ALLOWED BY HIM. HERE, THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT. H ENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE L EARNED CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE . 27. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. 28. NOW WE TAKE UP APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO.333/LKW/12. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) EX - PART E QUA THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 29. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE BENCH THAT IT IS NOTED BY L EARNED CIT(A) ON PAGE NO. 2 THAT 14 OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ASKED FOR ADJOURNMENT ON ALL THESE OCCASIONS AND NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE EVEN AFTER 13 ADJOURNMENTS. THE BENCH POINTED OUT THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RE STORED BACK TO LEARNED CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE IF THE ASSESSEE AGREES TO PAY RS.10,000/ - TOWARDS COST. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE AGREED FOR THE SAME. 30. LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT SINCE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A), THE MATTER SHOULD NOT BE RESTORED BACK. 31. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY MUCH NEGLIGENT AND NON CO - OPERATIVE BUT STILL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HOLD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE MAKES PAYMENT OF RS.10,000/ - WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER AND PRODUCE THE PROOF THEREOF BEFORE THE CIT(A) BY THAT DATE, THE CIT(A) SHOULD DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER ALLOWING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE 9 ASSESSEE. WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITHOUT ANY REASON AND SHOULD CO - OPERATE WITH CIT(A) FOR AN EARLY DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH DECISION A FTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH SIDES . 32. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION, THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED DO NOT CALL FOR ANY ADJUDICATION. THIS APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 33. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 88 - 89, 89 - 90 AND 90 - 91 ARE DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 92 - 93 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 89 - 90 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DAT E MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 3 0 T H JANUARY, 2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR