THE STANDARD BATTRIES LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 5(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 4408/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56281 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S R BHANDARIO
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Business expenditure
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

1 THE STANDARD BATTERIES LTD IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI MUMBAI MUMBAI MUMBAI G GG G BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH RAJENDRA SINGH RAJENDRA SINGH RAJENDRA SINGH , ,, , AM & AM & AM & AM & SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM VIJAY PAL RAO, JM VIJAY PAL RAO, JM VIJAY PAL RAO, JM ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. 4408/MUM/2010 4408/MUM/2010 4408/MUM/2010 4408/MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR (ASST YEAR (ASST YEAR (ASST YEAR 2006 2006 2006 2006- -- -07 0707 07 ) )) ) THE STANDARD BATTERIES LTD RUSTOM COURT OPP PODAR HOSPITAL DR ANNIE BESENT ROAD , MUMBAI 18 VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(3)(3), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. PAN NO. PAN NO. PAN NO. AAACT1391A AAACT1391A AAACT1391A AAACT1391A ASSESSEE BY SH S R BHANDARIO REVENUE BY SH D S SUNBDER SINGH DT.OF HEARING 8 TH DEC 2011 DT OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28 TH , DEC 2011 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER PER PER PER VIJAY PAL RAO VIJAY PAL RAO VIJAY PAL RAO VIJAY PAL RAO, , , , JM JMJM JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 25.2.1010 OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE AY 2006-07. 2 THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER : 1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY BUSINESS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. CONSE QUENTLY, HE ERRED IN CONFIRMING THAT:- (A) INCOME EARNED DURING THE YEAR (INTEREST OF `. 4 6.55 LACS ON TEMPORARY SURPLUS TO BE EVENTUALLY UTILIZED IN SETT LEMENT OF BUSINESS LIABILITIES OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY, SALE S TAX REFUNDS `. 2.67 LACS AND EXCESS PROVISIONS OF BUSINESS EXPENSE S / CREDIT BALANCES IN TRADING ACCOUNTS W/BACK `. 1.02 LACS) W AS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAID INCOME WAS EARNED IN THE COU RSE OF CARRYING ON OFF THE REGULAR BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND COUL D HAVE BEEN TAXED ONLY UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME AS CLAI MED BY THE COMPANY. (B) BUSINESS EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE ORDINARY 2 THE STANDARD BATTERIES LTD COURSE OF BUSINESS COULD NOT BE FULLY ALLOWED BUT B E RESTRICTED TO 10% (I.E. `. 47,400/-) OF THE SALES REVENUE OF `. 4 ,74,153/- FOR THE YEAR. (C) BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSS AND DE PRECIATION COULD NOT BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME FOR THE YEA R IN THE ABSENCE OF POSITIVE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS. WITHO UT PREJUDICE, CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT IN TERMS OF P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(2), BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIAT ION CAN BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME UNDER ANY HEAD (EXCEPT THE H EAD SALARY ) 3 THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND WAS EARLIER ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING, SALES AND SERVICES OF BATTERIES. TH E ASSESSEE SOLD ITS INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING TO M/S EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD., ON 16.2.2 008. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE OF `. 57.52 LACS AGAINST THE I NCOME FROM TRADING IN TEA OF ` 4.74 LACS AND OTHER RECEIPTS COMPRISING OF INTERE ST INCOME OF ` 46.55 LACS, SALES TAX REFUND OF ` 2.67 LACS AND EXCESS PROVISION WRIT TEN BACK OF ` 1.02 LACS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE OF ` 57.27 LACS CANNOT BE ALLOWED AGAINST COMPUTING THE INCOME FROM TRADING OF TEA BECAUSE THE SAME WAS NOT RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASS ESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE INTEREST INCOME, SALES REFUND AND EXC ESS PROVISION WRITTEN BACK AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AFTER ALLOWING A DEDUCTIO N OF 2% BEING EXPENSES INCURRED THEREOF. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ALLOWED THE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AT 10% OF THE RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF TR ADING IN TEA OF `. 4.74 LACS AMOUNTING TO `.47,400/- AND DISALLOWED THE BALANCE. THUS, AFTER ALLOWING 10% AS THE EXPENDITURE AGAINST THE TEA TRADING RECEIPT AND 2% AGAINST INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3.1 THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BU SINESS AND THEREFORE, BUSINESS EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. THE ASSE SSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2 001-02 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD 3 THE STANDARD BATTERIES LTD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS VERY MUCH IN THE BUSINESS AND IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION FOR BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND ALL ALLOWANCES. THE CIT(A) DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND WAS OF THE OPINION T HAT THE FACTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FA CTS OF THE AY 2001-02. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) CONCURRED WITH THE VIEW TAK EN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 4 BEFORE US, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EARLIER IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING, SERVICE A ND TRADING. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ITS BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF BATTERIES AND CONTINUED THE BUSINESS OF SERVICING AND TRADING; THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS C ONTINUE TO CARRY OUT THE BUSINESS OF SERVICE AS WELL AS TRADING AND ALL THE EXPENSES ARE ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THA T WHILE DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDER FOR THE AY 2001-02 AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE FOR THE AY 2 001-02 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT EVEN FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS I.E. AY 2003-04, 2004-05 AND 2005-06 THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS CONTINUING IN THE BUSINESS OF SERVICE AND TRADING, THEN THE INCOME FROM INTEREST INCOME, SALES TAX REFUND AND EXCESS PROVISION WRITT EN BACK IS BUSINESS INCOME AND CANNOT BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT INTEREST INCOME IS EARNED THROUG H DEPLOYMENT OF SURPLUS FUNDS AND ALSO INCLUDES THE INTEREST ON MARGIN MONE Y WITH BANK WHO HAVE ISSUED BANK GUARANTEE IN FAVOUR OF GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE SALE TAX REFUND IS ALSO NEEDED TO BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE BUSINESS INCOME AND TRADING RECEIPTS. HE HAS RELIED UPON TH E DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CHOWRINGHEE SALE BUREA U P LTD., REPORTED IN 87 ITR 542(SC). THUS, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER YEARS 4 THE STANDARD BATTERIES LTD REPEATEDLY, THEN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ABLE. HE HAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS STILL LISTED IN THE STOCK EXCHANGE AND THE NOMINEE OF THE LIC IS IN THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE DISTINGUISHABLE TO THE FACT S FOR THE AY 2001-02. HE HAS REFERRED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE AY 2001- 02 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL AFTER NOTICING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS EARNED THE INCOME FROM SERVICES FOR THE AY 2001-02 HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CONTINUING IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE IS ALLOWABLE. WHEREAS, FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THERE WAS NO BUSINESS ACT IVITY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETELY CLOSED ITS BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AN D SALES AS THE SAME WAS SOLD TO M/S EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD IN THE MONTH OF FEB 1998 AND THEREAFTER ALSO DID NOT CARRY OUT ANY ACTIVITY OF SERVICING. THEREFORE, INT EREST INCOME, SALES TAX REFUND AND EXCESS PROVISION WRITTEN BACK CANNOT BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY BUSINESS ACTIV ITY. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AS WELL A S PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE SOLD I TS BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF BATTERIES TO M/S EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD ON 16.2.19 98. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE STATED ITS BUSINESS OF TRADING IN T EA FROM AY 2003-04. THIS ISSUE OF CLAIM OF BUSINESS EXPENDITURE IS BEING ARISING S INCE AY 2001-02 AND PARTICULARLY FOR THE AY 2001-02, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 16.10.2006 HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 32 TO 35 AS UNDER; 32 FROM THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE MAIN OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IS TH AT THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING BUSINESS INCOME IS T OO NEGLIGIBLE COMPARED TO THE BUSINESS EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE AS SESSEE, WHICH IS A DEVISE TO AVOID THE TAX NET, PARTICULARL Y THE PAYMENT 5 THE STANDARD BATTERIES LTD WHICH THE ASSESSEE PAID BY VIRTUE OF THE SETTLEMENT WITH ASSESSEE S WORKERS. THEREFORE, IT IS NECESSARY TO SEE THE BACKGROUND OF THIS PAYMENT. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A) , THERE WAS A . LABOUR DISPUTE AND IT WAS SETTLED AROUND JULY/AUGUS T 1997 AND AS PER THE SETTLEMENT THE ASSESSEE WAS TO PAY `.28.OO CRORES WITHIN 90 DAYS.. ULTIMATELY WHEN THE UNIT (VAKOLA) WAS SOL D, EXIDE TOOK OVER THE LIABILITY ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF ` 18.00 CRORES. RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN TH E CASE OF K RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR VS. CIT, REPORTED IN 247 ITR 17 8 (SC), ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THIS IS AN ALLOWABLE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. THIS WAS A CASE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON IN TEN UNITS OF CASHEW NUTS PROCESSING. THERE WAS LOCKOUT IN FOUR UNITS AND SUB SEQUENTLY SETTLEMENT WAS ARRIVED AT IN REGARD TO THE FOUR UNI TS CLOSED DOWN. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT EVEN IF THE BUS INESS IN THOSE UNITS WAS NOT CARRIED ON, YET THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IS TO BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. TAKING CLUE FRO M THE ABOVE DECISION, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING NO HECTIC BUSINESS ACTIVITY CON TINUOUSLY, ASSESSEE WAS STILL FOR NAMESAKE CONTINUING SERVICE AND OTHER ACTIVITIES. HENCE, THE PAYMENT TOWARDS LABOUR SETTL EMENT IS TO BE ALLOWED. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH ASSESSEES CLAIM. THE FACTS, BRIEFLY, IS AS UNDER: AT VAKOLA UNIT OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE WERE ABOUT 18 2 WORKMEN THERE WAS LOCKOUT IN 1992-93 ON ACCOUNT OF REFUSAL TO WORK AND AGITATION OVER THE ISSUE OF SHIFTING OF OPERATIONS OF VAKOFA TO TALOJA. THE MATTER REACHED TO THE LABOUR COURT FOR ADJUDICATION. DURING JULY/AUGUST 1997, THERE WERE SOME EFFORTS FOR NEGOTIATION AND RECONCI LIATION BY THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, WHO DID NOT SUCCEED. FI NALLY, DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THROUGH THE INTERVENTION OF THE LABOUT MINISTER OF GOVERNMENT O F MAHARASHTRA, A SETTLEMENT WAS ARRIVED AT AND THE SETTLEMENT WAS CONCLUDED AND THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT WAS SIGNED WITH WORKMEN AND EMPLOYEES UN ION REPRESENTATIVES, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO PAY COMPENSATION, GRATUITY AND OTHER DUES IN CONSIDERAT ION OF THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE CASE PENDING BEFORE THE LABOU R COURT. HENCE, THE ASSESSES CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT CRYSTAL LIZED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TO THE EXTENT O F RS4,20,52,471/- IS TO BE ACCEPTED. 33. IT IS ALSO BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE GUARANTEE ISSUED BY THE ANZ GRINDLAYS BANK LTD. IN FAVOUR OF KOYNA HYDRO EL ECTRIC PROJECT WAS IN FORCE UPTO 2 ND FEBRUARYS 2002 AND THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE CONTRARY IS NOT BORNE OUT OF RECORD. THE INTEREST RECEIVED FROM THE FDRS PLEDGED AGAINST GUA RANTEES ALSO IS BUSINESS RECEIPT. 34. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO EXECUTE A SINGLE BUSINE SS CONTRACT FOR MONTHS, YET IT MAY BE DEEMED TO CARRY ON BUSINE SS IF DURING 6 THE STANDARD BATTERIES LTD THE LULL PERIOD AND INACTIVITY IT IS KEPT ALIVE, AS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SOLD ITS MAIN ACTIVITY OF MA NUFACTURING AND MARKETING, BUT THE OTHER TWO ACTIVITIES CONTINU ED AND MERE SLOW DOWN OR LULL IN THESE ACTIVITIES DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE CEASED TO HAVE THE ENTIRE BUSINESS ACTIVIT Y. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE DIRECTORS WERE HAVING REGULAR MEE TINGS. IF THE DIRECTORS MEET AND DRAW THEIR SITTING FEE; IF SECRE TARIAL ESTABLISHMENT AND STAFF IS MAINTAINED AND BILLS OF CHARGES FOR TYPING/LEGAL CHARGES ARE INCURRED, THAT WOULD CONST ITUTE CONTINUATION OF BUSINESS, AS HELD IN THE CASE OF IN DERCHAND HARIRAM, REPORTED IN 23 ITR 437, 442 (ALL). 35 ASSESSEE RECEIVED INTEREST INCOME ON FIXED DEPOS ITS EARMARKED BY BANKS AS MARGIN MONEY FOR ISSUE BANK G UARANTEES, FROM STANDARD CHARTERED GRINDLAYS BANK, BANK OF IND IA AND STATE BANK OF MYSORE. ASSESSEE WAS ALSO RECEIVING RENT FR OM SOME OF THE TENANTED PREMISES HANDED OVER TO EXIDE. 5.1 IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A VIEW AFTER OBSERVING THE FACTS IN PARA 30 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE ASS ESSEE DURING THAT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS RECEIVED `. 15,000/- FOR SUB-CONT RACTING THE REPAIR JOB OF BATTERIES AT KOYAN HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT STAGE IV TO M/S CHHABI ELECTRICALS PVT LTD., AND THE RECEIPT RS. 35 LACS FROM EXIDE BE ING OCCUPANCY CHARGES. THUS, THE TRIBUNAL, AFTER TAKING ALL THE FACTS INTO CONSI DERATION OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE AY 2001-02 HAS RECEIVED THE INC OME UNDER SERVICING ACTIVITIES AS WELL AS OCCUPANCY CHARGES FROM EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD. THERE IS NO DOUBT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. 2006-07 THAT THERE IS NO SUCH INCOME OR ANY ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEV ER, THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2003-04 AND 2004-05 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER FOR THE AY 2001-02 DT 16.10.2006. HENCE, TO MAINTAIN THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY, WE FOLLOW T HE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER YEARS AND DECID E THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 7 THE STANDARD BATTERIES LTD 6 AS REGARDS GROUND NO.1 (C ) REGARDING BROUGHT FOR WARD UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSS AND DEPRECIATION, WE NOTE THAT FOR TH E AY 2005-06 THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.5279/MUM/2008 VIDE OR DER DATED 30 TH NOV 2009 DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN PAR A 4 AS UNDER: 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED MATE RIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2001- 02 THE VERY SAME ISSUE HAD COME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . BY ORDER DATED 16-10-2006 N ITA NO.7134/MUM/2003 THE TRIBUNA L AGREED WITH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S, STILL FOR NAME SAKE CONTINUING SERVICE AND OTHER ACTIVITIES AND HE NCE PAYMENT TOWARDS LABOUR SETTLEMENT WAS TO BE ALLOWED. SIMILA R DIRECTION WAS GIVEN FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 ALSO . BEFORE US LEARNED DR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE BRING ANY MATERIAL TO ESTABLISH OTHERWISE. THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CI T(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE. 7 ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2005-06, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 6 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 28 TH , DAY OF DEC 2011. SD/ SD/- ( (( ( RAJENDRA SINGH RAJENDRA SINGH RAJENDRA SINGH RAJENDRA SINGH ) )) ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( (( ( VIJAY PAL RAO VIJAY PAL RAO VIJAY PAL RAO VIJAY PAL RAO ) )) ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI : DATED:28 TH , DEC 2011 RAJ* RAJ* RAJ* RAJ* 8 THE STANDARD BATTERIES LTD COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR, ITAT, MUMBAI +