M/S. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Indore V. The ACIT 5(1), Indore

ITA 478/IND/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5489 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: LALCHAND; MOHD JAVED
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE .. , .. , % BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , IDA BUILDING , 7,RACE COURSE ROAD, INDORE VS. ACIT 5(1) INDORE APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN:AAAJI 0103 J APPELLANT BY SHRI LAL CHAND CIT (DR) AND SHRI MOHD. JAVED, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI ANIL GARG, CA DATE OF HEARING 23.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23.11.2016 O R D E R PER O.P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMEBR. 1. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, INDORE [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT (A)] DATED 27.02.2014. THIS APPEAL PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09-10 AS AGAINST APPEAL DECIDED IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30. 12.2011 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(HEREIN AFTER REFERRE D TO AS 'THE ACT) BY THE . . /. I.T.A. NO. 478 /IND/2014 ( ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY / I.T.A. NO.478 /IND/2 014/A.Y.:09-10 PAGE 2 OF 10 ACIT 5(1) INDORE [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO ]. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN AS MANY AS 6 GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH ARE BEING DECIDE A S UNDER. 2. GROUND NO. 1 STATES THAT THE LD. CIT (A) GROSSLY ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1, 73, 21,500/- MADE BY THE AO OUT OF LOCAL FUND (GOVERNMENT) AUDIT FEES OF RS. 2, 93, 21,500/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED RS. 1 ,73,21,500/- AS AUDIT FEES AS BALANCE FEES PAYABLE OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 AND RS. 1,20,00,000/- PERTAINING TO FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE AUDIT FEES PAYABLE OF F.Y. 07-08 WERE CRYSTALLIZED D URING THE YEAR AS NEITHER THE DEMAND FOR THE SAME WAS RAISED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND BILL OF SAME RAISED DURING THE YEAR FOR THE UTILI ZATION OF SERVICE OF THE AUDITORS. HOWEVER THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE A SSESSEE COMPANY FOLLOWS MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND SINCE AUDIT FEES PERTAINS TO F.Y. 07-08, HENCE, BEING PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES, HENCE, SAME WAS DISA LLOWED. BEING, AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). 4. THE LD. CIT (A) NOTED THAT OF RATE OF SUCH PROFESSIO N SERVICES WAS FIXED AT 1% OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AUTHORITY, THEREFORE, THER E IS NO REASON AS TO WHY PROVISIONS OF RS. 1.50 CRORES WAS MADE IN F.Y. 07-08 OF WHICH THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT PERTAINS. THE LIABILITY PERTAINS TO EARLIER YEAR AND NO EVIDENCE IS BROUGHT ON RECORD ON THE REASONS OF DISPUTE AND CONTR OVERSY FOR NOT PREFERRING RELEVANT BILLS IN THE A.Y. 08-09. ACCORDI NGLY, THE FINDING OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED. 5. BEING, AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, TOOK US THROUGH P B PAGE NO 31 TO 32 WHICH INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY / I.T.A. NO.478 /IND/2 014/A.Y.:09-10 PAGE 3 OF 10 ARE COPY OF MEMORANDUM BILLS RAISED AND COPY OF NOTE SHE ET TO DEMONSTRATE THAT BILL OF RS. 3,23,,21,500/- WAS RECE IVED IN NEXT YEAR ON 06.05.2008 AS AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HA D MADE PAYMENT OF RS. 1,50,00,000/- ON 04.03.2009 OUT PROVISIONS MADE I N F.Y. 07-08 AND BALANCE OF RS. 1,73,21,500/- MADE VIDE CHALLAN DTD. 27.03.2 009. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT GOVERNMENT HAS RAISED DEMAND FOR AUDIT FEES AT RS. 3, 57,78,020/- (REFER PB- 32) BUT ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE , IT WAS NOT LIABL E TO PAY GOVERNMENT AUDIT FEES IN RESPECT OF THOSE RECEIPTS WHICH WERE MADE BY ID A AS NODAL AGENCY. ACCORDINGLY AUDIT FEES WAS DISPUTED AND LIABILITY OF RS. 1,50,00,000/- WAS ONLY ENVISAGED. HOWEVER CLAIM FOR GOVERNMENT AUDIT FEES DID NOT FIND FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, IT HAD TO PAY A SUM OF RS. 3,32, 21,500/- IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT LIABILITY IS TO BE RECOGNIZED AS AN EXPENDITURE WHEN IT IS SETTLED BETWEEN TWO PARTIES AND AFTER SETTLEMENT, ANY PAYMENT IS MADE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE LEARNED COUNSEL, ALSO CITED SOME CASE LAWS AS CIT VS. RAJ MOTORS (2006) 28 4 ITR 489(ALL), CIT VS. KANORIA CHEMICALS & INDUSTRIES LTD. (1992) 106 CTR 314(CAL) AND OTHERS AS PER HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERUSED T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND FIND THAT LIABILITY TO PAY GOV ERNMENT AUDIT FEES WAS RAISED VIDE BILL DTD. 06.05.2008 (PB31) IN THE FINAN CIAL YEAR2008-09. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH NOTE SHEET ENTRY PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO 32 AND 33, WHICH SHOWS THAT THERE WAS DISPUTE REGARDING PAYMENT O F GOVERNMENT AUDIT FEES IN RESPECT OF IDA BEING NODAL AGENCY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ENVISAGED THE LIABILITY IN F.Y. 2007-08, HENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF RS. 1,50,00,000/- INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY / I.T.A. NO.478 /IND/2 014/A.Y.:09-10 PAGE 4 OF 10 WAS ONLY MADE. SINCE THE LIABILITY WAS SETTLED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND IT WAS PAID DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION, HENCE, IT IS ALLOWABLE AS THE LIABILITY WAS CRYSTALLIZED AND SETT LED DURING THE YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 7. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 4,63,79,833/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BANK BALANCE RECONCILIATION ACCOUNT. 8. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4,63,79,833/- IS SHOWN IN THE CREDIT SIDE OF BALANCE SHEET WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ABLE TO R ECONCILE, HENCE, SAME WAS DISALLOWED. BEFORE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE, WHICH IS CREDITED IN THE SUSPENSE ACCOU NT, AND THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS GENERAL IN NATURE. HENCE, THE ADDI TION CAME TO BE SUSTAINED. 9. BEING, AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. BEFORE US, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS CONSOLIDAT ED BANK ACCOUNT FOR ALL THE BANK ACCOUNTS. VARIATION AROSE DUE TO UNDER/ OVER RECORDING OF REALIZATION FROM DEBTORS, UNDER /OVER RECORDING OF PAY MENTS TO CREDITORS ETC. FROM THE LAST MANY YEARS. IN SUBSEQUENT F.Y. 2009-10, THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 4,63,79,833/- ON CREDIT SIDE TURNED IN TO DEBIT AT R S. 6,67,71,716/- . THE LEARNED COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS QUASI GOVERNM ENT AUTHORITY IN WHICH EACH RECEIPTS IS FULLY AND TRULY RECORDED IN ITS BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS. 10. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIE S. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERUSED T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS N OT ABLE TO RECONCILE THE CREDIT BALANCE IN BALANCE SHEET. HOWEVER, IT WAS CLA IMED THE SAME ENTRIES INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY / I.T.A. NO.478 /IND/2 014/A.Y.:09-10 PAGE 5 OF 10 WERE REVERSED IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR RESULTING IN DEBIT BA LANCE IN BALANCE SHEET. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, TH IS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE REEXAMINED AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO. HENCE, THIS ISSU E IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE THE RECONCILIATION OF ENTRIES AS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IF THE ASSESSEE IS FAILED TO FURNISH SUCH RECONCILIATION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO, HE IS FREE TO ADD BACK THE S AID AMOUNT AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISPOSED-OFF A CCORDINGLY. 12. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 2,11,00,00 0/- ON ACCOUNT OF PERFORMANCE BANK GUARANTEE. 13. FACTS APROPOS OF THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE AUTHORITY HAS FORFEITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,87,00,000/- FROM A CONTRACTOR M/S. ARV IND TECHNO PVT. LTD. WITH M/S. AIREN DEVELOPER, WHICH WAS DEPOSITED BY THE A BOVE FIRM AS SECURITY DEPOSIT IN THE FORM OF PERFORMANCE BANK GUARANTEE. TH E AO NOTED THAT EXPENSES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ROB ARE REVENUE IN NATU RE, WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD ENVIRONMENTAL EXPENSES. THE AS SESSEE HAS DISCONTINUED THE CONTRACT AND FORFEITED GUARANTEE A MOUNT AS PER TERMS OF CONTRACT. AS THE EXPENDITURE ON ROB WERE REDUCED FRO M THE AMOUNT OF FORFEITURE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT FORFEITU RE WAS UNDER DISPUTE NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE, AS THERE WAS NO LIABILITY ARISEN A GAINST THE ASSESSEE AND POSSIBILITY OF ANY LIABILITY IN FUTURE WOULD BE CONTING ENT LIABILITY AND IT CANNOT BE REDUCED AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. AS SUCH ENVI RONMENTAL EXPENSES ARE REDUCED BY RS. 1,87,00,000/- WERE ADDED. THE AO FURT HER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO DEDUCTED RS. 24,00,000/- AS PENALTY F OR DELAY IN COMPLETION OF WORK FROM THE ABOVE JV AND ACCORDING TO CONTRACT WOR K AGREEMENT, THE INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY / I.T.A. NO.478 /IND/2 014/A.Y.:09-10 PAGE 6 OF 10 CONTRACTOR WOULD PAY ANY DELAY DAMAGES. THIS ALSO R EDUCED THE COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL EXPENSES AS SUCH SAME WERE ALSO DISALLO WED AND ADDED TO TOTAL INCOME. 14. BEING, AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD. CIT (A). THE SAME ARGUMENT WERE REPEATED. THE LD. CIT (A) OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY BROUGHT OUT THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROB EXPENSES ARE REVENUE IN NATURE, WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD E NVIRONMENTAL EXPENSES. THEREFORE, IF THE AMOUNT RECOVERED FROM THE CONTRACTOR WOULD BE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE THAT SOLE ARBITRATOR HAS REINSTATED THE CONTRACT WAS EXAMINED BY THE LD. C IT (A) AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ARBITRATOR HAS GIVEN A DEADLINE THAT CONTRA CT WORK WOULD BE COMPLETED WITHIN 7 MONTH FROM DATE OF ARBITRATION ORD ER DTD. 30.08.2010 I.E. BY MARCH 2011, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLETED THE W ORK EVEN BY 29.01.204. FURTHER, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ARBITRAT OR HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE OF FORFEITURE OF BANK GUARANTEE AND LEVY OF PEN ALTY. NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED TO SHOW THAT THE FORFEITURE OF BANK GUARANTEE AND PENALTY AMOUNT HAS BEEN REVERSED. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO EXA MINE THE DETAILS IF REINSTATEMENT OF CONTRACT ENTAILED THE REVERSAL OF F ORFEITURE BANK GUARANTEE AND PENALTY LEVIED. IF FOUND SO REVERSED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE AO MAY DELETE THE ADDITION. 15. BEING, AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT IN A WRIT PETITION NO. 10317/2013, THE HON`BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH , VIDE ORDER DATED 28.01.2014 DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO DEPOSIT BANK GUAR ANTEE OF RS. 1, 87, INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY / I.T.A. NO.478 /IND/2 014/A.Y.:09-10 PAGE 7 OF 10 00.000/- WITHIN A WEEK WITH BANK. AS REGARDS ADDITION OF RS. 24 LAKHS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS WITHHELD FROM RUNNING BILLS. SOLE ARBITRATOR ALSO GIVE A FINDING THAT IDA DID NOT PROVIDE LAND FOR CONSTRUCTI ON OF BRIDGE HENCE; IDA COULD NOT RECOVER THE PENALTY. HENCE, NO ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT COULD BE MADE. 16. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORD ER OF THE AO. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, AND FIND THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS ALREADY RESTO RED THIS GROUND FOR VERIFICATION OF THE AO, HENCE, NO GRIEVANCE ON OUR PART REMAINS TO BE ADJUDICATED, THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS ALSO NOT PRESSE D THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, HENCE, THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 18. GROUND NO. 4 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 1,78,53,33 5/- ON ACCOUNT OF LIFE TIME LEASE RENT. 19. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL, BEFORE US, HENCE, IT IS TREATED AS WITHDRAWN AND IS DISMISSED. 20. GROUND NO. 5 RELATES CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 18,59,881/- MADE OUT OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 21. FACTS APROPOS OF THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 44,13,377/- IN THE NAME OF STYLE SYSTEM UP-G RADATION ALLOWANCE WHICH PERTAINS TO ASSETS ACQUIRED BEFORE 01.04.2002, WHICH WERE DISALLOWED BY THE AO WHICH WERE CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT FOR THAT RELEVAN T YEAR. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE WORKING OF CORRECT DEPR ECIATION ALLOWABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED WORKING THAT RS. 25 ,53,496/- IS ALLOWABLE DEPRECIATION AND THEREFORE, BALANCE DEPRECIATION OF RS . 18,59,881/- WAS INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY / I.T.A. NO.478 /IND/2 014/A.Y.:09-10 PAGE 8 OF 10 DISALLOWED. BEFORE CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE CONCEDED T HAT THIS ISSUE IS DECIDE AGAINST IT, HENCE, DISALLOWANCE SO MADE WERE CONFIRME D. 22. BEING, AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY TRIBUNAL ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE ASSE SSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON`BLE HIGH COURT. 23. WE HAVE HEARD AND FIND THAT ISSUE IS COVERED AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE BY TRIBUNAL ORDER; HENCE, FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 24. GROUND NO. 6 RELATES TO CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 88,44,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPERVISION CHARGES. 25. FACTS APROPOS OF THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT WORK DONE ON BEHALF OF THEM. IN THIS REGARD, SOME DOCUMENT WERE PRODUCED WHICH SHOWED THAT THE ASSESSEE AUTHORITY CHARGING 12% AS SERVICE CHARGES ON THE WORK DONE BY IT ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETIES. THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT DECLARED THIS AMOUNT DURING THE YEAR. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS DONE THE WORK AS ABOVE OF RS. 7,38,08,998/- ON WHICH SERVICE CHARGES COMES TO RS. 88,44,000/- . HENCE, THE AO ADDED THE SAME TO TOTAL INCOME. 26. BEING, AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THE CIT (A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTESTED T HE ADDITION BUT CONTESTED THE QUANTUM AS THE AO HAS ADOPTED A UNIFORM RATE OF 12% ON ENTIRE WORK WHEREAS IN MANY CASES EITHER NO INCOME WA S DERIVED OR INCOME INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY / I.T.A. NO.478 /IND/2 014/A.Y.:09-10 PAGE 9 OF 10 MUCH LESSER RATE WAS EARNED. CONSIDERING THIS LD. C IT (A) UPHELD 10% AS REASONABLE RATE ON ESTIMATED ADDITION. 27. BEING, AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE A O ERRED IN ADOPTING 12% RATE OR SUPERVISION CHARGES AND LD. CIT (A) ERRE D IN REDUCING ESTIMATED ADDITION @10% OF SUPERVISION CHARGES WITHOUT CONSIDE RING THE MATERIAL FACTS WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS AND NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS ASSESSED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD, THE RATE OF PROFIT CANNOT BE MORE THAN 8%. 28. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT SHOWN THE INCOME EARNED ON AS SUPERVISION CHARGES FOR THE WORK DONE O N BEHALF OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIE D OUT SUPERVISION WORK FOR THEM. THEREFORE, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE CORRECT LY WORKED OUT THE INCOME ON THAT BEHALF. THE AO ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAIL ABLE WITH HIM APPLIED THE RATE OF 12% ON RECEIPTS OF RS. 7,38, 08,998/- WH ICH WERE REDUCED BY THE LD. CIT (A) TO 10%. WE DID NOT FIND ANY LOGIC IN THE PLE A OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT RATE IS HIGHER, PARTICULARLY; ANY COGENT EVIDE NCES HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED IT. THEREFORE, WE UPHELD THE FINDING OF THE CIT (A), AND HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 29. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 30. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.11.2011. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY / I.T.A. NO.478 /IND/2 014/A.Y.:09-10 PAGE 10 OF 10 SD/- SD/- (D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (O.P.MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 29TH NOVEMBER, 2016. OPM