ITO 7(2)(2), MUMBAI V. SADHANA NITRO CHEM LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4664/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 466419914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 13-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEIL PHILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: SHIR V MOHAN
• Section: 10B

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E , BENCH MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JM ./ ITA NO. 4664 / MUM /20 1 3 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 07 - 08 ) ITO - 7 (2) - 2 , MUMBAI - 20 VS. M/S SADHANA NITRO CHEM LIMITED, 207, KAKAD CHAMBERS, 132, DR. A.B.ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI - 400018 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A A BCS 1231 R ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) AND ./ ITA NO. 4657 / MUM/20 13 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :200 8 - 0 9 ) ITO - 7(2) - 2, MUMBAI - 20 VS. M/S SADHANA NITRO CHEM LIMITED, 207, KAKAD CHAMBERS, 132, DR. A.B.ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI - 400018 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A A BCS 1231 R ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /REVENUE BY : SHRI NEIL PHILIP /ASSESSEE BY : SHIR V.MOHAN / DATE OF HEARING : 29 /0 6 / 2015 / DAT E OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22/07 /2015 / O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), MUMBAI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 & 2008 - 09, RESPECTIVELY. 2. SINCE THE IS SUES IN BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE SAME, THEREFORE, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE BEING HEARD AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS ITA NO. 4664 &4657/13 2 COMMON ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN ITA NO.4664/MUM/2013 (AY 2007 - 08) HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERA TION. ITA NO. 4664/MUM/2013(AY 2007 - 08) 2. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF RS. 1,30,10,207/ - BEING 90% OF PROFIT OF EOU (EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT) UNIT AT ROHA, DISTRICT RAIGADH WHICH HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING BTCA, A CHEMICAL U SED IN TEXTILE INDUSTRY. THE AO NOTED THAT THIS UNIT HAS BEEN FUNCTIONING SINCE F.Y.1999 - 2000. HOWEVER IT WAS CONVERTED INTO EOU W.E.F. JULY 2005. AS PER T HE AUDIT REPORT THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION WAS MENTIONED AS 07.07.2005. HOWEVER, AS PER T HE LETTER DATED 21 - 12 - 09, IT HAS BEEN FUNCTIONING SINCE FY 99 - 00.THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT ANOTHER NON - EOU UNIT HAS ALSO BEEN FUNCTIONING FROM THE SAME COMPOUND AND ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF THE SAME PRODUCT. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE NECESSARY DETAILS VIZ DATE OF SETTING UP OF BOTH THE UNITS, DETAILS OF RAW MATERIAL USED, DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE, END PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED, ELIGIBILITY OF THE EOU UNIT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 10B ETC.ETC., AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS AND EXPLANAT IONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THE AO DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: (A) THE 10B UNIT SHOWED A NET PROFIT MUCH HIGHER THAN THE PROFITS OF THE OTHER UNITS. (B) EXPENSES OF THE 10B UNIT ARE ON THE LOWER SIDE; (C) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHIFTED EXPENSES OF 10B UNIT TO NON 10 - B UNIT. (D) MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY IN 10B UNIT WAS STARTED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1999 - 2000 AND IS EXPANSION OF BUSINESS. (E) IT CANNOT BE CALLED AN INDEPENDENT NEW UNIT. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEE N RUNNING THIS UNIT SINCE 1999 - 2000. THE CONVERSION INTO EOU UNIT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT WAS NOT AN EXPANSION OF BUSINESS . 3 . DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A) , THE ASSESSEE MADE CERTAIN SUBMISSIONS AND EXPLANATIONS AND ALSO PRODUCED CERT AIN DETAILS SUCH AS BREAK - UP OF THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF THE 10B UNITS AND NON - 10 B UNITS. THE LD. CIT(A) FORWARDED THE SAID DETAILS AND EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITA NO. 4664 &4657/13 3 THE AO DIRECTING HIM TO IDENTIFY THE EXPENSES WHICH HAD BEEN SHIFT ED FROM 10B UNIT TO NON 10B UNITS AND VICE - VERSA. THE AO WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE REMAND REPORT IN THIS RESPECT. 4 . THE AO IN THE FIRST REMAND REPORT DATED 02 - 08 - 2010, REPORTED THAT THE ACTUAL AND SPECIFIC IDENTIFICATION OF THE EXPENSES THAT HAD BEEN SHI FTED FROM 10B TO NON L0B UNITS WOULD BE EXTREMELY TIME CONSUMING AND CUMBERSOME. THE AO REPORTED THAT THE ADDITION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS BASED ON RATIO AND PROPORTIONATE METHOD. T HE AO,HOWEVER, COMPARED THE EXPENSES OF 10B AND NON 10B UNIT TO SHOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY BOTH THE UNITS. THE AO FURTHER REPORTED AS UNDER: - 'IN FACT, IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE BREAK UP OF THE EXPENSES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEEAT THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THEY HAVE THEMSELVES ADMITTED THAT ON LY THE ACTUAL EXPENSES HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED AND A COMMON/ ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN ALLOCATED TO 10B UNITS. IN THE ABSENCE OF SAME, THE DETERMINATION OF TRUE AND CORRECT PROFITS OF THE 1OB UNITS AS PER LAW WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO BEEN ISSUED A SEPARATE NOTICE TO SUBMIT THE RELEVANT DATA FOR DETERMINING THE EXACT EFFECT OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AND A FURTHER REPORT IN THIS RESPECT SHALL BE FILED IN DUE COURSE. ALTERNATIVELY, THE ISSUE MAY BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF MERITS OF THE CASE AS PER THE BASIS MENTIONED ABOVE AND THIS OFFICE MAY BE SUITABLY INTIMATED FOR NOT MAKING ANY FURTHER ENQUIRIES.' 5 . THE AO SENT HIS FURTHER REMAND REPORT BY LETTER DATED 15 - 09 - 2010 ANALYSING THE AMOUNT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED. IN THIS REMAND REPORT, THE AO REQUESTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY HIM WAS REQUIRED TO BE SUSTAINED. 6 . THE LD.CIT(A) HOWEVER AS PER FURTHER DIRECTIONS GIVEN VIDE LETTER DATED 25 - 05 - 2011, AGAIN DIRECTED THE AO TO SUBMIT ANOTHER REMAND REPORT. THE RE MAND REPORT SO GIVEN BY THE AO WAS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ITS COUNTER COMMENTS ON A.O'S REMAND REPORT IN RESPECT OF ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES UNDER THE DIFFERENT HEADS. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE OVER ALL FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE HELD THAT AS PER THE BOARD CIRCULAR NO.1/2005 DATED 6TH JANUARY 2005 THE UNIT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF ITA NO. 4664 &4657/13 4 DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER AFTER PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE THREE REMAND REPO RTS GIVEN BY THE AO AND CONSIDERING THE COMMENTS AND EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF REMAND REPORTS, ALLOCATED CERTAIN EXPENSES OF THE NON - 10B UNIT TO THE 10B ELIGIBLE UNIT. HE ACCORDINGLY RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.10B TO THE EXTENT OF RS.33,54,723/ - AND DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.1,11,01,062/ - AS DEDUCTION U/S.10B OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE WAS HAV ING ONE EXPORT ORIENTE D 10B UNIT AND OTHER NON 10B UNITS ALSO. IN THE 10B UNIT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PROFIT AND DEDUCTION OF SUCH PROFIT U/S. 10B OF RS.1,30,10,207/ - HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED ASSESSEE'S CLAIM MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT FIRSTLY, TH E 10B UNIT WAS AN EXPANSION OF BUSINESS SINCE IT WAS STARTED IN F.Y. 1999 - 2000 AND SECONDLY, ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPENSES OF 10B UNIT WERE SHIFTED TO NON 10B UNIT TO SHOW AND CLAIM HIGHER PROFITS IN 10B UNIT. THE ASSESSEE'S 10B UNIT WAS MANUFACTURI NG BTCA PRODUCT WHICH WAS BEING EXPORTED. IT WAS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THIS UNIT WAS SET UP BY THE ASSESSEE IN F.Y.1999 - 2000 FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME PRODUCT I.E. BTCA PRODUCT. THIS UNIT WAS CONVERTED INTO EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT I.E. EOU W.E.F. JULY 2005. PRIOR AND SUBSEQUENT TO THIS DATE, THE SAME PRODUCT I.E BTCA WAS PRODUCED IN THIS UNIT. THE CBDT IN CIRCULAR NO.1/2005 DATED 6 TH JANUARY 2005 HAS CLARIFIED THAT AN UNDERTAKING SET UP IN DOMESTIC TARIFF AREA AND DERIVING PROFIT FROM EXPORT, WHICH IS SUBSEQUE NTLY CONVERTED INTO EOU SHALL BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.10B OF THE ACT. IN THIS CIRCULAR, THE BOARD HAS GIVEN AN INSTANCE OF UNDERTAKING SET UP IN 1999 - 2000 AND CONVERTED AS 100% EOU ON 10 - 09 - 2004 AND HAS CLARIFIED THAT SUCH UNIT WILL BE ENTITLED FOR D EDUCTION U/S.10B OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF BOARD CIRCULAR, ASSESSEE'S UNIT WAS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S.10B OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS ALSO DISALLOWED ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10B ON ACCOUNT OF SHIFTING OF EXPENSES FROM 10B UNIT TO NON 10B UNIT FOR CLA IMING HIGHER DEDUCTION. IN THIS RESPECT, THE AO HAS COMPARED THE RATIO OF RAW MATERIAL CONSUMPTION, POWER &FUEL AND OTHER EXPENSES OF 10B UNITS AND NON 10B UNITS. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT 10B UNIT AND NON 10B UNIT WERE MANUFACTURING DIFFERENT PRODUC TS AND THE RAW MATERIAL FOR BOTH THE UNITS WERE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. THE RAW MATERIAL OF 10B UNIT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED/CONSUMED FOR PRODUCTION IN NON 10B UNIT. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ACTUALEXPENSES INCURRED FOR 10B UNIT HAVE BEEN CLAIMED TO ARRIVE AT THE PROFIT OF 10B UNIT. ITA NO. 4664 &4657/13 5 IN THE COMPARISON OF EXPENSES, THE TOTAL RAW MATERIAL CONSUMPTION WAS 41.03 CRORE. THE CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL IN 10B UNITS WAS 1.82 CRORE WHEREAS, CONSUMPTION IN NON 10B UNITS WAS 39.21 CRORES. THE TOTAL POWER 86 FUE L EXPENSES WERE AT RS.8.16 CRORES. THE ALLOCATION TO 10B UNIT WAS AT RS.20,66,114/ - WHEREAS ALLOCATION OF POWER & FUEL EXPENSES TO NON 10B UNITS WAS AT RS.7,96,17,866/ - . ON THIS BASIS, THE AO CONCLUDED THAT EXPENSES OF 10B UNITS HAVE BEEN SHIFTED TO NON 10 B UNITS. IN THIS RESPECT, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY OF BTCA PRODUCT (10B UNIT PRODUCT) WAS UNDER CONSTANT SUPERVISION AND CHECK OF THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT SINCE THIS UNIT WAS GETTING VARIOUS TYPES OF CONCESSION IN GOVT. DUTY. CESS ETC. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO FILE MONTHLY PRODUCTION REPORT TO THE EXCISE DEPT. IN THE FORM NO.ER2 UNDER CENTRAL EXCISE RULES. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPIES OF THESE REPORT FOR ALL THE MONTHS. THE REPORTS CONTAINS DETAILS OF NAME OF THE PRODUCT, OPENING BALANCE IN METRIC TONES, QUANTITY MANUFACTURED IN METRIC TONES, QUANTITY CLEARED IN MT, ASSESSABLE VALUE, DUTY PAYABLE, CLOSING BALANCE AND VARIOUS OTHER DETAILS. THUS, THESE MONTHLY REPORTS SUBMITTED TO CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT CONTAINS THE DETAILS OF QUANTITY MANUFACTURED DURING EACH MONTH. SOME OF THE MONTHLY REPORT SHOWS PRODUCTION AT NIL DURING A PARTICULAR MONTH SHOWING THAT DURING THAT MONTH THE 10B UNIT WAS NOT FUNCTIONING AND THEREFORE, POWER & FUEL EXPENSES WERE NOT INCURRED IN THAT UNIT DURING THAT MONTH. THE, ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE RAW MATERIAL FOR BTCA I.E. 10B UNIT PRODUCT WAS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM PRODUCTS OF OTHER NON 10B UNIT. IN VIEW OF THIS PARTICULAR POSITION, THE RAW MATERIAL EXPENSES OF 10B UNIT COULD NOT HA VE BEEN SHIFTED TO THE NON 10B UNIT EXPENSES. IN FACT, THE RAW MATERIAL FOR BOTH 10B & NON 10B UNITS WERE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED IN OTHER UNIT AND CONSEQUENTLY THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF SHIFTING OF RAW MATERIAL EXPENSES OF 10B UNIT TO NON 10B UNIT AND VICE VERSA. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT ITS CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL HAS BEEN DULY REPORTED TO THE EXCISE DEPT. ON MONTHLY BASIS AND WHICH HAS BEEN SUPERVISED BY THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE, ONLY THE ACTUAL RAW MATER IAL CONSUMPTION EXPENSES HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED TO THE 10B UNITS. SIMILARLY, FIRSTLY, THE LESS CONSUMPTION OF POWER & FUEL WERE REQUIRED IN 10B UNIT AND SECONDLY, IN SOME MONTHS THERE WAS NO PRODUCTION IN 10B UNITS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE POWER AND FUEL CONSUMPTI ON OF 10B UNITS WAS MUCH LESSER THAN NON 10B UNITS. IN VIEW OF ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION, THE A.O'S FINDING CANNOT BE SUPPORTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHIFTED RAW MATERIAL CONSUMPTION AND POWER & FUEL EXPENSES OF 10B UNITS TO NON 10B UNITS. IN RESPECT OF OPER ATION/MAINTENANCE, EMPLOYEES COST, ADMIN EXPENSES, SELLING DISTRIBUTION, MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES, THE ALLOCATION TO 10B UNIT WAS MUCH LESSER THAN ALLOCATION TO NON 10B UNIT. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH A WORKING/BASIS OF ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES BETWEEN 10B & NON 10B UNITS. THE ASSESSEE FILED SUCH WORKING/ALLOCATION ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS. EXPENDITURE BASIS ITA NO. 4664 &4657/13 6 RAW MATERIAL CONSUMED ACTUAL POWER & FUEL ELECTRICITY CHARGES FUEL & DIESEL CONSUMPTION WATER ACTUAL TONNAGE ACTUALS OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE STORES & SPARES MACHINERY REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE BUILDING REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE OTHER REPAIR & MAINTENANCE AFFLUENT EXPENSES R & D ACTUALS ACTUALS ACTUALS RATIO OF ASSETS IN EOU AS A PERCENTAGE TO TOTAL ASSETS. ACTUALS TONNAGE SALARY WAGES & BENEFITS ACTUALS ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE TURNOVER BASIS EXCEPT INSURANCE ON THE RATIO OF FIXED ASSETS IN THE EOU AS COMPARED TO TOTAL ASSETS. SELLING & DISTRIBUTION ACTUAL MISC. EXPENDITURE (INCLUDING INTEREST) T ERM LOAN & BANK INTEREST TURNOVER BASIS ACTUAL DEPRECATION ACTUALS PAYMENT TO AUDITORS AND MANAGERIAL REMUNERATION TURNOVER DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED WORKING/ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES AND THE PROFIT OF 10B UNIT WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.1,32,52,724/ - AS AGAINST ORIGINAL PROFIT OF RS. 1,44,55,785/ - . THUS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED DIFFERENT CRITERIAS FOR DIFFERENT EXPENSES. SOME OF THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED ON ACTUAL BASIS. THESE INCLUD ED SALARIES AND SELLING AND DISTRIBUTION. HOWEVER, IT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE AND LOGICAL IF THE SALARY AND DISTRIBUTION EXPENSES WOULD HAVE BEEN APPORTIONED ON THE BASIS OF TURNOVER. THE ALLOCATION OF OTHER EXPENSES WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DISTURBED. THE ALLOCATION OF SALARY AND SELLING AND DISTRIBUTION EXPENSES ON TURNOVER BASIS WILL BE AS UNDER: PARTICULARS TOTAL EXP. ALLOCATION ON THE BASIS OF TURNOVER 10B UNIT NON 10B UNIT EMPLOYEES BENEFIT 3,27,80,430 20,48,776 3,07,31,653 SELLING & DISTRIBUTION 2,62,06,988 16,37,936 2,45,69,052 THE ABOVE REALLOCATION OF EXPENSES TO 10B UNIT WOULD RESULT IN FURTHER REDUCTION OF PROFIT OF 10B UNIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.21,51,662/ - . THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/ S.10B TO THE ITA NO. 4664 &4657/13 7 EXTENT OF RS.12,03,061/ - (1,44,55,78 5 - 1,32,52,724) AND RS. 21,51,662/ - TOTALING TO RS.33,54,723/ - . THUS, THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.10B TO THE EXTENT OF RS.33,54,723/ - IS UPHELD. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.1,11,01,062/ - AS DEDUCTION U/S.10B OF THE ACT. THI S GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE, PARTLY ALLOWED. 8 . AFTER HEARING THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND GOING THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE UNIT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF 10B DEDUCTI ON AS PER THE CBDT CIRCULAR(SUPRA). THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER ANALYZING THE REMAND REPORTS, DETAILS AND EVIDENCES ON THE FILE AND CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS VERY RATIONALLY ALLOCATED CERTAIN EXPENSES OF THE NON 10B UNIT TO THE ELIGIBLE UNIT AND THEREAFTER HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.33,54,723/ - AND HAS ALLOWED THE BALANCE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE WELL REASONED ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ITA NO. 4657/MUM/2013 (AY 2008 - 09) 9. AS WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE SAME ISSUES AS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL WHILE DECIDING ITA NO.4664/MUM/2013(AY 2007 - 08), THEREFORE, THE REASONING GIVEN IN THE AFORESAID APPEAL SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS IN THIS APPEAL ALSO . 10 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEAL S OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22/07 / 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . . ) ( R.C.SHARMA ) ( ) ( SANJAY GARG ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 22/07 /201 5 . . /PKM , . / PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ITA NO. 4664 &4657/13 8 / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBA I 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//