ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Arushi Exports, Delhi

ITA 4424/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5135 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT CHOPRA FCA SHRI P K GARG
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 143(3); 6

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 4424/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2010 - 11 PAGE 1 OF 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A BENCH NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I N ITA NO. 44 24 /DEL/201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 1 0 - 11 A CIT CIRCLE - 2 8 (1), NEW DELHI VS. ARUSHI EXPORTS 6658, GADODIA MARKET, KHARI BAOLI, DELHI (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) (PAN: A A BFA1107B ) REVENUE BY: SHRI ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI ANKIT CHOPRA, FCA, SHRI P.K. GARG, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 0 9 / 0 8 /201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 7 / 0 8 /201 7 ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09 . 05 .20 1 4 , PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) - XX V, NEW DELHI FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S 143(3) FOR THE A.Y. 20 10 - 11 . IN THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION AMOUNTING TO RS. 34,50,412/ - U/S 80IA(4) (IV) OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT LOSSES OF EARLIER YEARS WERE NOT PAGE 2 OF 10 ADJUSTED A GAINST ANY OTHER INCOME. THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ARE NOT COVERED BY ANY CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE C1T(A). 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR RESERVING THE RIGHT TO AMEND, MODIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR D URING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL.' 2. THE BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF IMPORT, TRADE OF SPICES, SALE OF DRY FRUITS AND KIRANA GOODS, BESIDES THIS THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO HAVING INCOME FROM SHIPPING COMMISSION ALSO IS ENGAGED IN THE WIND ELECTRICITY GENERATION. FROM TWO UNITS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA CLAIMED DEDUCTION OFRS . 9,23,15AND RS. 25,27,253/ - FROM TWO UNITS U/S 80IA(4). THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE SAID DEDUCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80IA(5) AS THERE WAS NO BROUGHT FORWARD LO S SES FROM EARLIER YEAR S. IN RESPONSE TO THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELAY UDHA SWAMI SPINNING MILLS P. LTD. VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 240 ITR 477 WHEREIN , IT WAS HELD THAT THE LOSS IN THE EARLIER TO THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AL READY ABSORBED AGAINST THE PROFIT OF OTHER BUSINESS COULD NOT BE NOTIONALLY BROUGHT FORWARD AND SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AS NO SUCH MANDATE WAS PROVIDED IN SECTION 80IA(5). 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY IN THE UNIT A STARTED ON 23.3.2005 AND AT UNIT B FROM 29.3.2006, FROM THE SAID UNITS THEY WERE BROUGHT FORWARDED LOSSES COMING FROM YEARS WHICH COULD NOT BE ADJUSTED FROM THE PROFIT OF UNIT A AND B . A CCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF PAGE 3 OF 10 UNIT A AND B AGGREGATING TO RS. 34,50412/ - (UNIT A AMOUNTING TO RS. 9,23,159/ - AND AT UNIT B OF RS.25,27,253/ - ). THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT THE MUTE QUESTION FOR ADJUDICATION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 010 - 11 CAN BE TREATED NOTIONAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR AVAILING THE BENEFIT 100% DEDUCTION FROM PROFIT AND LOSS GAINS OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AND SECONDLY; WHETHER THE LOSSES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR PRIOR TO THE INITIAL CLAIM WHICH HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST THE T AXABLE PROFITS IN THE EARLIER YEARS. ALREADY ADJUSTED LOSSES OF THE ELIGIBLE UNIT PRIOR TO THE FIRST YEAR OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WHICH IS THE INITIAL YEAR BE NOTIONALLY BROUGHT FORWARD AND SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS OF THE INITIAL YEAR. THE LEARNED CIT(APP EALS) RELYING UPON THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTS WHICH HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED BY HIM FROM PAGES 7 TO 19 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ISSUE WHETHER THE CHOICE IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO CHOSE INITIALLY ASSESSMENT YEAR IS WELL SETTLED AND THE LOSSES OF THE ELIGIBLE UNITS IF HAVE BEEN SET OFF OTHER BUSINESS INCOME FROM THE OTHER YEARS THEN SAME CANNOT BE BROUGHT FORWARD SO AS TO BE ADJUSTED FROM THE PROFITS OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO CHOSE THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) WHEN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION. HE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELAY UDHA SWAMI SPINNING MILLS P. LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA) AND ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN ITA NO. 321/MUM/2012 A.Y. 2008 - 09 IN THE CASE OF SHEVIE EXPORTS VS. ASSESSEE AND ORDER DATED 10.4.2014. BEFORE US THE LD. DR STRONGLY RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SUBMITTED THAT HE CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CHOSEN INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THIS YEAR OR EARLIER YEARS. IN ANY CASE THE PAGE 4 OF 10 BROUG HT FORWARD LOSSES FROM THE ELIGIBLE UNITS CAN ONLY THE SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFIT OF THE ELIGIBLE UNIT ONLY. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI RAKESH CHOPRA SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHOSEN A.Y. 2010 - 11 AS THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4). THIS IS APPARENT FROM THE AUDIT REPORT IN THE FORM NO. 10CCB THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO. 7. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS NOT DISPUT ED THIS ISSUE EVEN THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WHILE FRAMING THE ISSUE FOR ADJUDICATION AS STATED THAT THE MUTE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE ARE LEGALLY CORRECT IN ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AS THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. HE FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT APART FROM THIS ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY CATENA OF DECISIONS, NOW THE CBDT HAS ALSO ISSUED A CIRCULAR NO. 1 OF 2016 DATED 15.2.2016 CLARIFYING THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA HAS THE OPTION TO CHOSE THE INITIAL/FIRST YEAR FROM WHICH HE MAY DESIRE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION 10 CONSECUTIVE YEARS OUT OF THE SLAB OF 15 YEARS AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SUB SECTION (5) OF THE SECTION 80IA. THEY WERE ALSO ADVISED AND DIRECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT ONLY TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION BUT ALSO DIRECTED THAT PENDING LITIGATION TO ALLOW U/S 80IA ON THIS ISSUE SHALL NOT BE PERSUADED. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO SAID CIRCULAR AND A COPY OF WHICH IS APPEARING ON PAGES 35 TO 36 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT N OW BY VIRTUE OF CBDT S CIRCULAR ON THIS ISSUE IS NOT DEBATABLE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT FINDING GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DENIED CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA ON THE PROFIT OF TWO ELIGIBLE UNITS PAGE 5 OF 10 ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF POWER GENERATION ON THE GROUNDS THAT BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES TO ELIGIBLE UNITS HAS TO BE SET OFF FROM THE PROFITS OF THIS YEAR SINCE THE ELECTRICITY GENERATION FROM BOTH THE UNITS HAD STARTED MUCH EARLIER. THE ASSESSEE S CA SE HAS BEEN THAT IT HAS ESTABLISHED TWO SEPARATE UNDERTAKINGS WHEREIN WIND MILLS WERE INSTALLED FOR THE ELECTRICITY GENERATION AND THE INITIAL YEAR FOR THE CLAIM HAS BEEN CHOSEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE A.Y. 2010 - 11. THE DETAILS OF ELIGIBLE UNITS ARE AS UN DER: - UNIT LOCATION DATE OF COMMENCEMENT INITIAL YEAR OF CLAIM UNIT - A ELECTRICITY GENERATION UNIT NO. 375 LOCATED AT SF NO. 137/3B(P), PAPPAMPATTY VILLAGE, PALLAMDAM TALUK, COIMBATORE DISTRICT, TAMILNADU 23.03.2005 A.Y. 2010 - 11 UNIT - B WINDMILL ELECTRICITY GENERATION UNIT NO. 1733 LOCATED AT SF NO. 342(P), AYANSURANDI VILLAGE, V.K. PUDUR TALUK, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU 29.03.2006 A.Y. 2010 - 11 6. IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR CLAIMING OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA BY THE ASSESSEE IS 2010 - 11 AS THE ASSESSEE HAS SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 10CCB AND ALSO IT IS NOT A MATTER OF DISPUTE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). WHENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS OPTED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION FROM THE A.Y. 2010 - 11, BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 80IA(2) THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT DISREGARD THE CHOICE FOR OPTION EXERCISED BY THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THE ASSE SSEE CHOOSING THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEARS THEN THE LOSSES OF THE YEARS STARTING FROM THAT INITIAL YEAR ALONE ARE TO BE BROUGHT FORWARDED AS PER THE SUB PAGE 6 OF 10 SECTION (5) OF THE SECTION 80IA. IF THE LOSSES OF THE ELIGIBLE UNITS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST THE PRO FITS OF OTHER BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE THEN SUCH BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES CANNOT BE NOTIONALLY BROUGHT FORWARD SO AS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE PROFITS OF THE ELIGIBLE UNITS IN THE INITIAL YEAR CHOSEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS HAS BEEN CLARIFYING BY THE TRIBUNAL AFTER FOLLOWING CATENA OF DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF SHEVIE EXPORTS VS. ASSESSEE (SUPRA) READS AS UNDER: - 10. FROM A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE, IT CAN BE GATHERED THAT IT IS A NON - OBSTANTE CLAUSE WHICH OVERRIDES THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND IT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR OR ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR TO BE COMPUTED AS IF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME. THUS, THE FICTION CREATED IS THAT THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME AND THE DEDUCTION WOULD BE ALLOWED FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR OR ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT NOWHERE DEFINES AS TO WHAT IS THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEA R. PRIOR TO 1ST APRIL 2000, THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS DEFINED FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF ELIGIBLE ASSESSEES UNDER SECTION 80IA(I2). HOWEVER, AFTER THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN STATUTE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 1999, THE DEFINITION OF 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR' HAS BE EN SPECIFICALLY TAKEN AWAY. HOW, WHEN THE ASSESSEE EXERCISES THE OPTION OF CHOOSING THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AS CULLED OUT IN SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 801A FROM WHICH IT CHOOSES ITS 10 YEARS OF DEDUCTION OUT OF 15 YEARS, THEN ONLY THE LOSSES OF THE YE ARS STARTING FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR ALONE ARE TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD AS STIPULATED IN SECTION 80 I A(5). THE LOSS PRIOR TO THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN SET - OFF CANNOT BE BROUGHT FORWARD AND ADJUSTED INTO THE PERIOD OFTEN YEARS FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AS CONTEMPLATED OR CHOSEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE LOSS HAVE BEEN INCURRED FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR, THEN THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ADJUST LOSS IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND IT HAS TO BE COMPUTED AS I F ELIGIBLE BUSINESS IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME AND THEN ONLY DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA CAN BE DETERMINED. THIS IS T HE TRUE IMPORT OF SECTION 80IA(5 ). PAGE 7 OF 10 7. AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THIS ISSUE NOW ALSO HAS BEEN SET AND PRESSED BY THE CBDT S CIRCULAR NO. 1 OF 2016 WHEREIN, WHICH HAS BEEN CLARIFIED AS UNDER: - CIRCULAR NO. 1 /2016 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, THE 15TH FEBRUARY, 2016 SUBJECT; CLARIFICATION OF THE TERM 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR' IN SECTION 80IA (5) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 SECTION 80IA OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 ('ACT'), AS SUBSTITUTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 1999 WITH EFFECT FROM QL.04.2000, PROVI DES FOR DEDUCTION OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 100 % OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE FROM AN ELIGIBLE BUSINESS (AS REFERRED TO IN SUB - SECTION (4) OF THAT SECTION) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRESCRIBED PROVISIONS. SUB - SECTION (2) OF SE CTION 80IA FURTHER PROVIDES THAT THE AFORESAID DEDUCTION CAN BE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, AT HIS OPTION, FOR ANY TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS OUT OF FIFTEEN YEARS (TWENTY YEARS IN CERTAIN CASES) BEGINNING FROM THE YEAR IN WHICH THE UNDERTAKING COMMENCES OPERATION, BEGINS DEVELOPMENT OR STARTS PROVIDING SERVICES ETC. AS STIPULATED THEREIN. SUB - SECTION (5) OF SECTION 80IA FURTHER PROVIDES AS UNDER - 'NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT, THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF AN ELIGIBLE BUSINESS TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (1) APPLY SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION UNDER THAT SUB - SECTION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR OR ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, BE COMPUTED AS IF SUCH ELIGIBLE BUSINESS WERE THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND TO EVERY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR UP TO AND INCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH THE DETERMINA TION IS TO BE MADE'. PAGE 8 OF 10 IN THE ABOVE SUB - SECTION, WHICH PRESCRIBES THE MANNER OF DETERMINING THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION, A REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE TERM 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR'. IT HAS BEEN REPRESENTED THAT SOME ASSESSING OFFICERS ARE INTERPRETING THE T ERM 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR' AS THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS/ MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY HAD COMMENCED AND ARE CONSIDERING SUCH FIRST YEAR OF COMMENCEMENT/OPERATION ETC. ITSELF AS THE FIRST YEAR FOR GRANTING DEDUCTION, IGNORING THE CLEAR MANDATE PR OVIDED UNDER SUB - SECTION (2) WHICH ALLOWS A CHOICE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR DECIDING THE YEAR FROM WHICH IT DESIRES TO CLAIM DEDUCTION OUT OF THE APPLICABLE SLAB OF FIFTEEN (OR TWENTY) YEARS. THE MATTER HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY THE BOARD. IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR FRO M SUB - SECTION (2) THAT AN ASSESSEE WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IA HAS THE OPTION TO CHOOSE THE INITIAL/ FIRST YEAR FROM WHICH IT MAY DESIRE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION FOR TEN CONSECUTIVE YEARS, OUT OF A SLAB OF FIFTEEN ( OR TWENTY) YEARS, AS PRESC RIBED UNDER THAT SUB - SECTION. IT IS HEREBY CLARIFIED THAT ONCE SUCH INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS BEEN OPTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE, HE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IA FOR TEN CONSECUTIVE YEARS BEGINNING FROM THE YEAR IN RESPECT OF WHICH HE HAS EX ERCISED SUCH OPTION SUBJECT TO THE FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN THE SECTION. HENCE, THE TERM 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR' WOULD MEAN THE FIRST YEAR OPTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA. HOWEVER, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF YEARS FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION SHOULD NOT TRANSGRESS THE PRESCRIBED SLAB OF FIFTEEN OR TWENTY YEARS, AS THE CASE MAY BE AND THE PERIOD OF CLAIM SHOULD BE AVAILED IN CONTINUITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ARE, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IN ACCORDANCE W ITH THIS CLARIFICATION AND AFTER BEING SATISFIED THAT ALL THE PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS APPLICABLE IN A PARTICULAR CASE ARE DULY SATISFIED. PENDING LITIGATION ON ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 IA SHALL ALSO NOT BE PURSUED - TO THE EXTENT IT RELATES TO INTERPR ETING 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR' AS MENTIONED IN SUB - SECTION (5) OF THAT SECTION FOR WHICH THE STANDING COUNSELS/D.R.S BE SUITABLY INSTRUCTED. THE ABOVE BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF ALL ASSESSING OFFICERS CONCERNED. (DEEPSHJKHA SHARMA) DIRECTOR TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PAGE 9 OF 10 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CBDT CIRCULAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERITS IN THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 7 . 0 8 .201 7. S D / - S D / - ( L.P. SAHU ) (AMIT SHUKLA) ( ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) DATED: 1 7 . 0 8 .2017 NARENDER COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT (APPEALS) 5) DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE DRAFT DICTATED ON 11 .0 8 .2017 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 11 . 0 8 .2017 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. PAGE 10 OF 10 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 1 7 . 8 .2017 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 1 7 . 8 .2017 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 1 7 . 8 .2017 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.