ITO, WARD-1(4), Nagpur V. M/S ZETA SOFTECH PVT. LTD., Nagpur

ITA 437/NAG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3133 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Period of limitation
• Section: 143(3); 10B

Judgement Text

1 I TA NO. 437/NAG/2013. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.A. NO.437/NAG/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11. THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, ZETA SOFTECH PVT. LTD. WARD - 1(4), NAGPUR. VS. NAGPUR. PAN AAAC Z1500D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NARENDRA KANE. RESPONDENT : SHRI K.P. DEWANI. DATE OF HEARING : 01 - 0 2 - 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 5 TH FEBRUARY , 2016. O R D E R PER MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - I, NAGPUR DATED 05 - 09 - 2013 AND THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE REPRODUCED BELO W: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF EVEN THOUGH BY VIRTUE OF DATE OF COMMENCEMENT MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 56G THE ASSE SSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 10B OR 10A AS IT WAS BEYOND A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS OF PRODUCTION/MANUFACTURE; 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO ENTERTAIN A DEDUCTION/EXEMPTION WHICH W AS NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIM AS PER RETURN AND IN DEFIANCE OF APEX COURT JUDGEMENT IN 284 ITR 3213; 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A WITHOUT APPREC IATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SET UP ITS BUSINESS IN S.E.Z. AS MANDATED U/S 10A(2)(I)(C) OF THE ACT. 2 I TA NO. 437/NAG/2013. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSE D U/S 143(3) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 DATED 28 - 12 - 2012 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD DERIVED INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF IT ENABLES SERVICES. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 10B AMOUNTING TO RS.75,09,165/ - . ACCORDING TO THE AO THE DEDUCTION U/S 10B COULD BE ALLOWED FOR A PERIOD OF 10 CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEA RS BEGINNING FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE UNDERTAKING HAD STARTED MANUFACTURE/PRODUCTION OF ARTICLES OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE. THE AO HAD EXAMINED F ORM NO. 56G AND NOTICED THAT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PRODUCTION WAS WITH EFFECT FROM 23 RD OF FEBRUARY, 2000. AS PER THE AO THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE TO GET THE BENEFIT U/S 10B UPTO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 . IN COMPLIANCE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT THE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED ON 23 RD OF FEBRUARY, 2000. HENCE THAT WAS THE DATE OF INCORPORATION AND NOT THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION. THE SAID DATE WAS INADVERTENTLY MENTIONED AS THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF THE PRO DUCTION, WHEREAS IT WAS THE DATE OF INCORPORATION OF THE COMPANY. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THE PRODUCTION STARTED WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL, 2001 RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02. THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE DATES MENTIONED ON F ORM NO. 56G HE HAS HELD AS UNDER : 4. DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION : I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION, IT WAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN COL . 6 OF ANNEXURE A TO THE FORM NO . 56G REQUISITIONED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S LOB THAT THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION , WAS 23.02.2000. IT WAS THE SAME DATE MENTIONED IN THE FORM NO. 56 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S LOB FOR THE A.Y . 2009 - 10. AND WHEN THE FACT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT BY ADOPTING THE DATE 3 I TA NO. 437/NAG/2013. OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION AS 23.02.2000 IT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION FOR THE A . Y . 2010 - 11, THE ASSESSEE SUDDENLY TOOK U - TURN AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTUAL PRODUCTION WAS COMMENCED IN APRIL 2001 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 AND THE EXEMPTION PERIOD LIMIT FOR 10 YEARS WOULD BE FROM 1 ST ASS. YEAR I . E. 2001 - 02 AND LAST 10 TH ASS. YEAR WOULD BE 2010 - 11 I . E. YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING CHANGE OF DATE OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION WITH THAT OF THE DATE REPORTED IN FORM NO. 56G CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (I) IT WAS THE SAME DATE I . E . 23 . 02 . 2000 WHICH W AS BEING MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO. 56G IN THE PRECEEDING YEARS UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 10B. .' - ' ', ~ ' (II) IN ITS REPLY SUBMITTED ON 10.12.2012, THE ASSESSEE FAILED ~'~ ~ ~ T~ <' , TO MENTION THE ACTUAL DATE OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION AND SIMPLY STATED THAT THE ACTUAL PRODUCTION WAS COMMENCED IN APRIL 200 L . : ~_~ ,; ; 7:; :: : ':' : :1' CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING CHANGE OF DATE OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION TO APRIL 2001 IS NOT ACCEPTED AND THE DATE 23.02.2000 AS REPORTED IN FORM NO. 56G NOT ONLY FOR THE A . Y. UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT ALSO FOR THE EARLIER A . YRS IS CONSIDERED AS DATE OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION. IN THE CIRCULAR NO. 1/2005 DATED 06/01/2005 ISSUED BY THE CBDT, IT IS VERY CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 10B IS AVAILABLE FOR A PERIOD OF TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS BEGINNING WITH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE UNDERTAKIN G BEINGS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE . IN THIS CASE, DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION WAS 23/02/2000 I.E. THE F.Y. 1999 - 2000 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2000 - 2001 AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO CLAIM D EDUCTION U/S 10B FROM THE A.Y. 2000 - 01 TO 2009 - 10 ONLY. THUS, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE I.T. ACT FOR THE A.Y. UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. 2010 - 11. 3. THERE WAS AN ALTERNATE CLAIM THAT THE DEDUCTION COULD BE ALLOWED U/S 10A OF THE I.T. ACT. THAT TOO WAS REJECTED AS UNDER : ALTERNATE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 10A: THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DT. 10/12/2012 CONTENDED THAT IF FOR ANY REASON THE DEDUCTION U/S 10B IS NOT GRANTED THEN THE SAME BE GRANTED UNDER THE PR OVISION OF SECTION 10A. REGARDING CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10A, IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (5) OF SECTION 10A OF THE IT ACT, THE DEDUCT ION UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE ADMISSIBLE FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR BEGINNIN G ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2001, UNLESS THE ASSESSEE FURNISHES 4 I TA NO. 437/NAG/2013. IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM I.E. 56F ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE REPORT OF AN ACCOUNTANT AS DEFINED IN THE EXPLANATION BELOW SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 288 CERTIFYING THAT THE DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CORRECTLY CLAIMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION. THOUGH RULE 12 PROVIDES THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME SHALL NOT BE ACCOMPANIED BY ANY DOCUMENT OR COPY OF ANY ACCOUNT OR FORM OR REPORT OF AUDIT REQUIRED TO BE ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, IT WAS MANDATORY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO GET THE REPORT FROM THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT IN FORM NO. 56F BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING RETURN U/S 139(1). HOWEVER, IT HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE. HENCE, THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE TO GRANT DEDUCTION U/S 10A IN LIEU OF SECTION 10B IS REJECTED. 4. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AT THE OUTSET, WE HAVE NOTICE THAT THE VERDICT OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) W AS CONFINED TO THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A IN LIEU OF U/S 10B OF THE I.T. ACT. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE HAS HELD AS UNDER : 5. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THIS CASE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS APPELLANT HAS MADE A CLAIM U/S LOB AMOUNTING TO RS. 75,09,165/ - . THE AO HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF CLAIM U/S LOB IN PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER. THE AO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT AS PER THE FORM NO.S6G THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF MANUFACTURE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS MENTIONED AS 23.02.2000, THEREFORE, THE 10 CONSECUTIVE PERIOD HAS EXPIRED T ILL AY 2009 - 10 WHICH ENTAILS THE A SSESSEE DISQUALIFIED TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION U/S LOB IN THE YEAR OF APPEA L I . E. AY 2010 - 11 WHICH FALLS IN THE 11 T H YEAR OF PRODUCTION. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE AO THE ASSESSEE, AS PER LAW, IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY DEDUCTION U/S LOB. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS SUBMISSION AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DATE MENTIONED IN FORM NO.56G AS 23.02.2000 AS SUCH IS THE DATE OF INCORPORATION OF THE COMPANY AND NOT THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF THE PRODUCTION, WHEREAS ACCORD ING TO THE APPELLANT, THE ACTUAL OPERATIONS FOR COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION HAD NOT STARTED TILL 31 . 03.2000. THE A.O. HOWEVER, WAS . NOT CONVINCED AND REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S LOB. SINCE THE APPELLANT, IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, HAS TAKEN AN ALTERNATE GROUND THAT IF THE CLAIM U/S LOB IS NOT ALLOWED, IN THAT CASE CLAIM U/S LOA MAY BE ALLOWED, WHICH - HAS ALREA DY BEEN ALLOWED IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR 2009 - 10 IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT ON IDENTICAL FACTS BY THE THEN CIT(A) - I, NAGPUR VIDE ORDER 5 I TA NO. 437/NAG/2013. NO.CIT(A) - I/416/11/12 DA TED 17.09.2012, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS BEING CONSIDERED IN ORDER U/S LOA IN ENSUING PARAS AND SINCE TWO CLAIMS CANNOT BE ALLOWED SIMULTANEOUSLY, TO MY OPINION IT WOULD B E APPROPRIATE TO REFRAIN FROM ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE OF CLAIM U/S LOB ON MERITS. 5.1 AS REGARDS THE ALTERNATE CLAIM OF APPELLANT THAT DEDUCTION U/S LOA MAY BE ALLOWED IT WAS OBSERVED BY A.O. THAT THE PRESCRIBED FORM NO. 56F IS REQUIRED TO BE FILED ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS MANDATORILY REQUIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE GET A REPORT FROM THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT IN FORM NO. 56F BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN U/S 139(1). AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ADHERE TO THIS CRITERION, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S LOA HAS BEEN DENIED. HOWEVER IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FILED FORM 56F FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S LOA. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.3 IN THIS CONTEXT IT IS ALSO WORTHWHILE TO CONSIDER THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT NAGPUR BENCH IN ITA NO. 176/NAG/2009 DT.13 - 08 - 2009 IN THE CASE OF INFOSPECTRUM PVT. LTD. THE IS SUE WAS DECIDED ON SIMILAR FACTS WHETHER APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 10 A OR S 10 B. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT WHEN THERE IS INADVERTENT MISTAKE OR TECHNICAL LAPSES THERE IS NO GROUND FOR REJECTION OF AN ASSESSEE'S LEGITIMATE CLAIM. 4.1 WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT AS PER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTED THE AOS REJECTION ON THE GROUND OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION. HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT GROUND NO. 3 WAS NOT ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE LEA RNED CIT(APPEALS). WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOW RAISED GROUND NO. 1 SPECIFICALLY RAISING THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF THE DEDUCTION U/S 10B OR U/S 10A BEYOND A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF PRODUCTION. 5. WITH THIS FACTUAL AS WELL AS LEGAL BACKGROUND WE HAVE HEARD BOTH 6 I TA NO. 437/NAG/2013. THE SIDES. AS FAR AS THE ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED D.R. MR. NARENDRA KANE ARE CONCERNED, HE HAS EMPHASIZED THAT LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WENT WRONG IN NOT DECIDING THE ISSUE OF LIMITATION WHICH WAS THE MAIN BASIS FOR REJECTION OF THE DEDUCTION BY THE AO. LEARNED D.R. HAS PLEADED THAT IT WAS WRONG ON THE PART OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) TO ONLY CONSIDER THE ALTERNATE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BUT GRANTING THE APPEAL EVEN THOUGH FAILED TO CONSIDER THE MAIN ISSUE OF LIMITATION OF 10 YEARS PR ESCRIBED UNDER THE I.T. ACT. ALTERNATIVELY THE LEARNED D.R. HAS SUGGESTED THAT THE MATTER CAN GO BACK TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF LIMITATION ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 6. ON THEN BOTHER HAND, LEARNED A.R. MR. K.P. DEWANI HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTIO N ON CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AS ANNEXED IN THE PAPER BOOK TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE DATE OF INCORPORATION WAS 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2000 BUT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PRODUCTION WAS IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR. HE HAS PLEADED THAT THE RELEVANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE ST ART OF THE PRODUCTION WAS VERY MUCH IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT AS IS EVIDENCED FROM THE AUDITORS REPORT, HENCE THE MATTER CAN BE DECIDED IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. 7. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF THE AO WAS THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B/10A WAS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 10 YEARS, HENCE NOT ADMISSIBLE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. WE HAVE FOUND FROM THE PARAGRAPH REPRODUCED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER (SUPRA) THAT THE AO HAD FOUND THE DATE OF PRODUCTION W AS 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2000 AS RECORDED IN FORM NO. 56G. BUT SIMULTANEOUSLY THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED AUDITORS REPORT WHICH HAD STATED THAT THE OPERATION OF THE COMPANY COULD NOT BE STARTED UPTO 31 ST MARCH, 2000 AND DUE TO THAT REASON NO 7 I TA NO. 437/NAG/2013. DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED FOR THAT PERIOD. IN ALL THESE DOCUMENTS IT IS MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS NO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY UPTO 31 ST MARCH, 2000, HOWEVER, T HERE IS NO DOCUMENT PLACED BEFORE US TO CATEGORICALLY ESTABLISH THE EXACT DATE OF START OF PRODUCTION. THIS ASPECT WAS DEFINITELY REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED BY LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), SPECIALLY WHEN THE REVENUE HAD RAISED THE SPECIFIC GROUND CHALLENGING THE AO S REJECTION ON THE GROUND THAT INADVERTENTLY LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS GIVEN HIS VERDICT ONLY ON THE PLEA OF ALTERNATIVE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF ADMISSIBILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A, HENCE FAILED TO DECIDE THE MAIN ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF LIMITATION AS PRE SCRIBED UNDER THE I.T. ACT. 8. IN RESPECT OF REVENUES GROUND NO. 2 AND 3 I.E. CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A, WE HEREBY UPHOLD THE VIEW TAKEN BY LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). WE HAVE ALSO BEEN INFORMED THAT ON THIS ISSUE THE ITAT, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 IN ITA NO. 394/NAG/2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 14 - 11 - 2014 HAS CONSIDERED THE LEGAL AS WELL AS FACTUAL ASPECT AND EVEN AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF GOETZ INDIA LTD. 284 ITR 323 HAS HELD THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DE CISION OF INFOSPECTRUM INDIA PVT. LTD. (ITA NO. 81/NAG/2012) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE BUSINESS WAS SET UP IN SEZ AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE I.T. ACT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH PRONOUNCED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAID VERDICT OF THE RESPECTED BENCH. 9. AS A RESULT, GROUND NO. 2 AND 3 OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. 10 . TO CONCLUDE, WE HEREBY RESTORE GROUND NO. 1 BA CK TO THE STAGE OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) TO GIVE SEPARATE FINDING ON THE ISSUE OF 8 I TA NO. 437/NAG/2013. APPLICABILITY OF LIMITATION OF 10 YEARS PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT AFTER EXAMINING THE RECORD OF THE PAST YEARS, NEEDLESS TO SAY AFTER PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AS SESSEE. 1 1 . IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED THAT TOO FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRODUCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 5 TH D AY OF FEBRUARY , 2016. SD/ - SD/ - (SHAMIM YAHYA) (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 5 TH FEBRUARY , 2016. COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. M/S ZETA SOFTECH PVT. LTD. , 14, NORTH AMBAZARI ROAD, SHIVAJI NAGAR, NAGPUR - 440010. 2. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), NAGPUR. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX - ,NAGPUR. 4. CIT(APPEALS) - I, NAGPUR. 5. D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, NAGPUR WAKODE.