ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI V. NEW HOLLAND TRACTORS INDIA P.LTD ( NOW NEW HOLLAND FLAT (INDIA) P.LTD), MUMBAI

ITA 4729/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93367 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRIYANKA; PARAD SAVLA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment
• Section: 115JB; 147; 37

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4729 & 4730/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07 & 2004-05 DCIT-10(1), 455, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 4 TH FLOOR, M.K. MARG, MUMBAI-400020 / VS. M/S NEW HOLLAND TRACTORS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 303, CENTRAL PLAZA, 166, CST ROAD, KALINA, MUMBAI-400098 ( / REVENUE) ( !'# $ /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO. AAACN3781E CO. NOS.159 & 160/MUM/2013 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.4730 & 1429/MUM/2012) ASSESSMENT YEARS:2004-05 & 2006-07 M/S NEW HOLLAND TRACTORS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (AMALGAMATED WITH FIAT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED) (NOW KNOWN AS NEW HOLLAND FIAT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 303, CENTRAL PLAZA, 166, CST ROAD, KALINA, MUMBAI-400098 / VS. DCIT-10(1), 455, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 4 TH FLOOR, M.K. MARG, MUMBAI-400020 ( !'# $ /ASSESSEE) ( / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AAACN3781E ITA NO.4729, 4730 /MUM/2012 & C.O. NO.159 & 160/MUM/2013 , M/S NEW HOLLAND FIAT (INDIA) LTD. 2 / REVENUE BY SHRI VINOD KUMAR-DR !'# $ / ASSESSEE BY SHRI PARAD SAVLA & PRIYANKA % & ' $ ( / DATE OF HEARING 30/07/2015 ' $ ( / DATE OF ORDER: 31/07/2015 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DA TED 04/10/2012 (A.Y. 2004-05) AND 11/04/2012 (A.Y. 2006 -07) OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MUMBAI AND TH E ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE APPEALS OF TH E REVENUE. 2. DURING HEARING OF THESE APPEALS, THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, CONTENDED THAT THE ISS UE INVOLVED ARE COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR A.Y. 2003-04 AND 2007-08 (ITA N O.8579 & 5282/MUM/2011) ORDER DATED 20/12/2013. THE LD. COU NSEL ALSO FILED THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 20 /12/2013. THE LD. DR, THOUGH, DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION DRAWN I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT DID NOT CONTROVERT THE FACTUAL FINDING AND CONSEQUENT DECITION RECORDED IN THE ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE, BEFORE COMING TO ANY CONCLUSION, WE ARE EXPE CTED TO ANALYZE THE REASONING CONTAINED IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ITA NO.4729, 4730 /MUM/2012 & C.O. NO.159 & 160/MUM/2013 , M/S NEW HOLLAND FIAT (INDIA) LTD. 3 DATED 20/12/2013 AND THE ISSUE WISE WILL BE DEALT W ITH IN PRECEDING PARA OF THIS ORDER. 3. IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE, THEREFORE, THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. THE FIRST COMMON GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINS TO DE LETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION OF WARRANTY OF RS.1,6 6,54,998/- (A.Y. 2006-07) AND RS.48,45,790/- (A.Y. 2004-05) UN DER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BEING CONTINGENT IN NA TURE. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 22/12/2013, AS AGREED FROM BOTH SIDES, HAS ADJUDICA TED THE ISSUE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAME IS REPRODU CED HEREUNDER:- ITA/8579/MUM/2011-AY.2003-04: FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL PERTAINS TO DELETING THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF PROVISIONS FOR WARRANTY MADE BY THE AO. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WARRANTED EA CH PART OF THE PRODUCT SOLD FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD. FOR THE SAID WARRANTY OBLIGATION ASSESSEE MADE A PROVISION OF RS.1.88 COR ES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON ACCOUNT OF ANTICIPATED CLAIMS FOR WARRANTY.AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT AMOUNT FOR WARR ANTY WAS A MERE PROVISION ,THAT SAME WAS UNASCERTAINED AND HEN CE NOT ALLOWABLE. 2.1.AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPEAL AUTHORITY (FAA).AFTER CONSI DERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R HE HELD THAT ITA NO.4729, 4730 /MUM/2012 & C.O. NO.159 & 160/MUM/2013 , M/S NEW HOLLAND FIAT (INDIA) LTD. 4 THE ASSESSEE HAD BOOKED SALE OF ITS PRODUCTS FOR T HE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND WARRANTY EXPENDITURE WAS ALLOWABLE, THAT ASSESSEE HAD SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THAT THE PROVISIONS FO R WARRANTY WAS COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND PAST PRACTICE/EXPERIENCE OF THE EARLIER YEARS,THAT PROVI SION FOR SUCH WARRANTY WAS DEBITED IN P&L ACCOUNT AT RS.1.88 CROR ES,THAT THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED DURING THE YEAR WAS AT RS.1.63 CRORES, THAT THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE AND THE PROVISI ON WERE VERY NEAR, THAT THE PROVISION MADE WAS NOT ARBITRARY IN NATURE OR WAS NOT A BLIND PROVISION, THE PROVISION WAS NOT AN UNA SCERTAINED LIABILITY. REFERRING TO THE JUDGMENT OF BHARAT EART H MOVERS DELIVERED BY THE SUPREME COURT HE ALLOWED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.2.BEFORE US, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUP PORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUB MITTED THAT ISSUE WAS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE DELHI COURT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF BECTON DICKINSON INDIA PVT.LTD.(83CCH 73). HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE D ECISION OF INDIAN OIL TANKING LTD. OF THE E BENCH OF THE MUMBA I TRIBUNAL(120ITD237). 2.3.WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE FAA HAD GIVEN A FINDING OF FACT THAT ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING A SCIENTIFIC METHOD BASED ON THE PAST EXPERIENCE. WE FIND THAT FOR ARRIVING AT THE CONCLU SION THAT A LOGICAL SYSTEM WAS FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE, FAA HA D CONSIDERED THE CHART SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT I SSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF WARRANTY OF PROVISIONS WAS DEALT AN D DECIDED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ROTORK CON TROLS INDIA P.LTD(314ITR62) IN FOLLOWING MANNER : ITA NO.4729, 4730 /MUM/2012 & C.O. NO.159 & 160/MUM/2013 , M/S NEW HOLLAND FIAT (INDIA) LTD. 5 IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE HAD AN OBL IGATION AS RESULT OF PAST EVENT AND A RELIABLE ESTIMATE COULD BE MADE OF THE AMOUNT OF OBLIGATION. NOT ONLY THIS HISTORICAL TREN D INDICATED LARGE NUMBER OF GOODS WERE SOLD AND IN THE SOLD ITE M DEFECT EXISTED TO SOME EXTENT. SO,WE ARE OF THE OPINION TH AT THE FAA HAD RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-CO MPANY. GROUND NO.1 IS DECIDED AGAINST THE AO. 3.1. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL VIDE AFORESAID ORDER DATE D 20/12/2013 ON IDENTICAL FACT/ISSUE, DISMISS THE APP EAL OF THE REVENUE BY HOLDING THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ADDUCED A SCIENTIFIC METHOD WHICH WAS BASED ON THE PAST EXPERIENCE AND LOGICAL SYSTEM WAS FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THE HONBLE APEX CO URT IN THE CASE OF ROTORK CONTROLS INDIA PVT. LTD. (314 IT R 62) HELD AS UNDER:- THE PRESENT VALUE OF A CONTINGENT LIABILITY, LIKE THE WARRANTY EXPENSE, IF PROPERLY ASCERTAINED AND DISCOUNTED ON ACCRUAL BASIS CAN BE AN ITEM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 37. THE P RINCIPLE OF ESTIMATION OF THE CONTINGENT LIABILITY IS NOT THE N ORMAL RULE. IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS, THE NAT URE OF SALES, THE NATURE OF THE PRODUCT MANUFACTURED AND SOLD AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF ACCOUNTING ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WO ULD ALSO DEPEND UPON THE HISTORICAL TREND AND UPON THE NUMBE R OF ARTICLES PRODUCED. A PROVISION IS A LIABILITY WHICH CAN BE MEASURED ON LY BY USING A SUBSTANTIAL DEGREE OF ESTIMATION. A PROVISION IS RE COGNIZED WHEN : (A) AN ENTERPRISE HAS A PRESENT OBLIGATION AS A RES ULT OF A PAST ITA NO.4729, 4730 /MUM/2012 & C.O. NO.159 & 160/MUM/2013 , M/S NEW HOLLAND FIAT (INDIA) LTD. 6 EVENT ; (B) IT IS PROBABLE THAT AN OUTFLOW OF RESOU RCES WILL BE REQUIRED TO SETTLE THE OBLIGATION, AND (C) A RELIAB LE ESTIMATE CAN BE MADE OF THE AMOUNT OF THE OBLIGATION. IF THESE COND ITIONS ARE NOT MET, NO PROVISION CAN BE RECOGNIZED. THE PRINCIPLE IS THAT IF THE HISTORICAL TREND INDIC ATES THAT A LARGE NUMBER OF SOPHISTICATED GOODS WERE BEING MANUFACTUR ED IN THE PAST AND THE FACTS SHOW THAT DEFECTS EXISTED IN SOM E OF THE ITEMS MANUFACTURED AND SOLD, THEN PROVISION MADE FOR WARR ANTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH SOPHISTICATED GOODS WOULD BE ENTITL ED TO DEDUCTION FROM THE GROSS RECEIPTS UNDER SECTION 37 . 3.2. WE FIND THAT ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION , THE ASSESSEE HAD AN OBLIGATION AS A RESULT OF PAST EVENTS, THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCH ON IDENTICAL FACTS/ISSUE, WE FIND NO INFIRMIT Y IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THUS, HIS STAND IS AFFIRMED. THIS GROUN D OF THE REVENUE IS THEREFORE, HAVING NO MERIT, CONSEQUENTLY , DISMISSED. 4. THE NEXT COMMON GROUND PERTAINS TO DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR WARRANTY AMOUNTIN G TO RS.4,91,77,891/- (A.Y. 2006-07) AND RS.2,53,41,314/ - (A.Y. 2004-05) RESPECTIVELY, WHILE CALCULATING THE BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WITHOUT GOING INTO MUCH DELIBERATION, WE FIND THAT ON IDENTICAL LINES, THIS GROUND IS ALSO DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS A WELL ITA NO.4729, 4730 /MUM/2012 & C.O. NO.159 & 160/MUM/2013 , M/S NEW HOLLAND FIAT (INDIA) LTD. 7 REASONED ORDER HAS ALREADY BEEN PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 5. THE NEXT COMMON GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE PERTAINS TO DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR L EAVE ENCASHMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.44,57,896/- AND RS.31,59,479/-, GRATUITY AMOUNTING TO RS.24,31,856/ - (A.Y. 2004-05) WHILE CALCULATING THE BOOK PROFIT U/ S 115JB OF THE ACT. 5.1. WE FIND THAT, AS AGREED FROM BOTH SIDES, THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DISPOSED OFF BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 20/12/2013. THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE:- 3. NEXT THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL(GOA-2,3AND4) ARE A BOUT DELETING THE ADJUSTMENTS IN BOOK PROFITS MADE BY TH E AO ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION OF WARRANTY, PROVISION FOR GRA TUITY AND PROVISION FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT. DURING THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS AO FOUND THAT WHILE CALCULATING THE BOO K PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAD NOT ADDED PROVISIONS MADE UNDER THE ABOVE REFERRED THRE E HEADS I.E.UNDER THE HEADS WARRANTY (RS.1. 88 CRORES.),GRATUITY(14.75LACS), AND LEAVE ENCASHMENT (RS.31.68 LACS). THEREFORE,HE ADDED ALL THE PROVISIONS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT. 3.1. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO, ASSESSEE PREFERRE D AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FAA. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HE HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS ITA NO.4729, 4730 /MUM/2012 & C.O. NO.159 & 160/MUM/2013 , M/S NEW HOLLAND FIAT (INDIA) LTD. 8 MADE FOR WARRANTY WERE BASED ON PAST EXPERIENCE AN D SCIENTIFIC METHOD, THAT SAME WERE NOT ARBITRARY OR UNASCERTAINED OR CONTINGENT. WITH REGARD TO THE PRO VISIONS OF GRATUITY, HE HELD THAT SAME WERE MADE ON BASIS OF A CTUARIAL VALUATION AND COULD NOT BE TERMED UNASCERTAINED LIA BILITY, THAT WORD PROVISION HAD BEEN USED AGAINST THE EXPENSES I NCURRED .DEALING WITH ISSUE OF PROVISIONS OF LEAVE ENCASHME NT HE HELD THAT PROVISIONS WERE BASED ON UN-AVAILED CREDIT OF LEAVE BY THE EMPLOYEES, THAT SAME COULD NOT BE TREATED AS CONTIN GENT LIABILITY. HE HELD THAT PROVISIONS MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE, UNDER ALL THE THREE HEADS WERE IN THE NATURE OF ASCERTAIN ED LIABILITY AND SAME WERE NOT LIABLE TO BE ADDED BACK TO BOOK P ROFIT. 3.2.BEFORE US, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR)RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR) SUBM ITTED THAT ISSUE OF PROVISION FOR WARRANTY WAS ALLOWABLE U/S.115JB WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSSESSEE BY THE DECIS ION OF INDIAN OIL TANKING LTD.(SUPRA),THAT HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND DELHI HAVE HELD THAT PROVISION FOR GRATUITY WAS ALL OWABLE U/S.115JB IN THE CASES OF INOX LEISURE LTD.(84CCH70) AND ILPEA PARAMOUNT(P) LTD.(336 ITR54)RESPECTIVELY, THAT I N THE MATTER OF H P TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(3 5 TAXMANN.COM.450)THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF HP. 3.3.WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US. WE ARE AWARE THAT SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT WAS INCORPORATED IN THE STATUTE WITH A SPECIFIC PUR POSES AND IT DEALS WITH SPECIAL PROVISION FOR PAYMENT OF TAX BY CERTAIN COMPANIES. EXPLANATION TO SECTION 2 PROVIDES THE LIS T OF THE ITA NO.4729, 4730 /MUM/2012 & C.O. NO.159 & 160/MUM/2013 , M/S NEW HOLLAND FIAT (INDIA) LTD. 9 ITEMS THAT ARE TO BE INCLUDED OR EXCLUDED WHILE COM PUTING BOOK PROFIT. AS PER EXPLANATION THE AMOUNT OR AMOUNTS SET ASIDE TO PROVISIONS MADE FOR MEETING LIABILITIES, OTHER THAN ASCERTAINED LIABILITIES HAVE TO BE INCLUDED WHILE COMPUTING BOO K PROFIT. IN OTHER WORDS IF ASCERTAINED LIABILITIES ARE THERE SA ME CANNOT BE ADDED WHILE COMPUTING ALTERNATE MINIMUM TAX. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, PROVISIONS MADE UNDER THE HEAD GRATUITY, WARRANTY AND LEAVE ENCASHMENT ARE NOT CONTINGENT/ UNASCERAINED AND THEREFORE SAME CANNOT BE ADJUSTED WHILE COMPUTING BOOK-PROFIT U/S.115JB OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF INDIAN OIL TANKING LTD.(SUPRA)MUMBAI TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT PROVISION FOR WARRANTY IS AN ASCERTAINED LIABILITY AND CANNOT BE ADDED BACK FOR COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB OF THE ACT. DEAL ING WITH THE ISSUE OF PROVISION FOR GRATUITY TO BE CONSIDERE D FOR MAT PURPOSES, HONBLE GUJARAT HC IN THE CASE OF INOX LE ISURE LTD.(SUPRA)HAS HELD THAT ADDITION OF GRATUITY AS UN ASCERTAINED LIABILITY UNDER CLAUSE (C) TO EXPLANATION 1 TO SECT ION 115JB WAS NOT WARRANTED. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE HONBLE HP H IGH COURT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE, OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT WITH REF ERENCE TO THE COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE. IN THAT MATTER AO HAD HELD THAT PROVISION TOWARDS LEAVE ENCA SHMENT OF EMPLOYEES WAS UNASCERTAINED LIABILITY AND ADDED IT BOOK PROFIT.FAA UPHELD HIS ORDER. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE, TRIBUNAL REVERSED HIS ORDER. DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL H AD RIGHTLY HELD THAT PROVISION FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED CONTINGENT LIABILITY FOR COMPUTING BOOK- PROFIT U/S.115JB OF THE ACT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ITA NO.4729, 4730 /MUM/2012 & C.O. NO.159 & 160/MUM/2013 , M/S NEW HOLLAND FIAT (INDIA) LTD. 10 JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS AND THE DECISI ON OF COORDINATE BENCH WE DECIDE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2,3 AND 4 AGAINST THE AO. 5.2. WE NOTE THAT WHILE DELIBERATING UPON THE ISSU E IN THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 20/12/2013, THE TRIBUN AL HAS ALREADY CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF INDIAN OIL TANKI NG LTD., WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD THAT PROVISION FOR GRATUITY WA S ALLOWABLE U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS F URTHER DELIBERATED UPON THE DECISION OF THE GUJARAT HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF INOX LEISURE LTD., WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD THAT ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF GRATUITY AS UNASCERTAINED LI ABILITY UNDER CLAUSE (C) TO EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 115JB WAS NOT WARRANTED, IDENTICALLY HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT ON THE ISSUE OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT WITH REFERENCE TO COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF TH E AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE DECIDE THIS ISS UE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THUS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 6. THE ONLY NEW GROUND REMAINED TO BE ADJUDICATED IN THESE APPEALS PERTAINS TO DELETING T HE DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR WEALTH TAX AMOUNTING TO RS.1,01,048/- (AY. 2006-07) AND RS.86,813/- (A.Y. 2 004- 05), WHILE CALCULATING THE BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THA T THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER DATED 21/09/2011 FOR A.Y. ITA NO.4729, 4730 /MUM/2012 & C.O. NO.159 & 160/MUM/2013 , M/S NEW HOLLAND FIAT (INDIA) LTD. 11 2003-04. FOR WHICH, OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO T HE FINDING RECORDED IN PARA 5.1 (PAGE-3) OF THE IMPUGN ED ORDER (ITA NO.4730/MUM/2012). THIS FACTUAL MATRIX W AS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE, THUS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON THIS COUNT ON IDENTICAL GROUND RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS BEFORE US. FINALLY, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 7. NOW, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE CROSS OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN C.O. NO.159/MUM/2013 (ARI SING OUT OF ITA NO.4730/MUM/2012 AND C.O. NO.160/MUM/2013 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.4729/MUM/ 2012). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THESE C.O.S ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). SINCE, WE HA VE THE AFFIRMED THE STAND OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS), THEREFORE, THESE CROSS OBJECTION HAS REMAINED FOR ACADEMIC INTEREST ONLY. 7.1. SO FAR AS, CONFIRMING THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE BENCH BEFORE BOTH SIDES THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN CONFIRMING THE REOPENING U/S 147 OF TH E ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO THE OBSE RVATION MADE BY THE BENCH, THUS, THE STAND OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE REOPENING U/S 147 IS AFFIRMED. THUS, BOTH THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO.4729, 4730 /MUM/2012 & C.O. NO.159 & 160/MUM/2013 , M/S NEW HOLLAND FIAT (INDIA) LTD. 12 FINALLY, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH SIDES, AT TH E CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 30/07/2015 . SD/- SD/- ( SANJAY ARORA ) (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $# / JUDICIAL MEMBER % & MUMBAI; ) DATED : 31/07/2015 F{X~{T? P.S/. . . %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. +,- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./,- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 0 0 % 1$ ( + ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. 0 0 % 1$ / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 34 .$ ! , 0 +( ! 5 , % & / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ' 7& / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, /3+$ .$ //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , % & / ITAT, MUMBAI