ADVANCE POWER DISPLAY SYSTEMS LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4803/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3554 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI
• Assessee Lawyers: Y P TRIVEDI
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4245/M/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-98 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(1), ROOM NO.210, 2 ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 VS. M/S. ADVANCE POWER DISPLAY SYSTEMS LTD., UNIT NO.08, SDF-I, SEEPZ, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI 400 096 PAN: AAACA 5970G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.4803/M/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-98 M/S. ADVANCE POWER DISPLAY SYSTEMS LTD., UNIT NO.08, SDF-I, SEEPZ, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI 400 096 PAN: AAACA 5970G VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(1), ROOM NO.210/260, 2 ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI Y.P. TRIVEDI, A.R. & MS. USHA DALAL, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI A.B. KOLI, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 25.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.08.2016 O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ABOVE TITLED CROSS APPEALS ONE BY THE REVENUE AND THE OTHER BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER DATE D 07.03.2011 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER R EFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF AS EXTRACTED FROM THE IMPUGNE D ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A 100% EXPORT ORIEN TED UNIT LOCATED IN SEEPZ, ITA NO.4245/M/2011 ITA NO.4803/M/2011 M/S. ADVANCE POWER DISPLAY SYSTEMS LTD. 2 ANDHERI (E). IT MANUFACTURES SWITCH MODE POWER SUPP LIES USED IN THE COMPUTER INDUSTRY. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE RAW-MATERIAL COMPRISES ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS WHICH ARE LARGELY IMPORTED. I T WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS HAVE VERY S HORT SHELF LIFE. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH 1996, THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED RAW- MATERIALS FROM DYNAMIC SYSTEMS LIMITED (USA) AND QU ALITY COMPONENTS AND SYSTEMS PTE LIMITED (SINGAPORE) AMOUNTING TO RS.9,0 9,79,393/- AGAINST AN EXPORT ORDER. HOWEVER, IT WAS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESS EE THAT THE SAID ORDER WAS CANCELLED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR 1996-97 RELEVANT TO AY 1997-98. CONSEQUENTLY THE RAW MATERIAL IMPORTED AGAINST THIS ORDER REMAIN ED OF NO USE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WROTE TO DYNAMIC SYSTEMS LIM ITED (USA) AND QUALITY COMPONENTS AND SYSTEMS PTE LIMITED (SINGAPO RE) REQUESTING INTERALIA TO TAKE BACK THE MATERIAL LATEST BY 31 ST MARCH 1997 OTHERWISE THE MATERIAL WILL BE SCRAPPED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAC TORY WAS IN SEEPZ / THE GOODS COULD NOT BE REMOVED EXCEPT WITHOUT THE EXTAN T APPROVAL OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS SEEPZ, ANDHERI (E), MURNBAI . ACCORDINGLY ASSESSEE AFTER OBTAINING THE PERMISSION OF THE CONC ERNED APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY RESHIPPED RAW-MATERIALS WORTH RS.7,18,25,299/- TO T HE RESPECTIVE PARTIES AND FOR THE BALANCE RAW-MATERIAL WORTH RS.1,91,54,094/- DEBIT NOTES WERE RAISED ON THE SAID PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO) SUBMITTED THAT AS THE PARTIE S FROM WHOM THE SAID RAW-MATERIAL WORTH RS.1,91,54,094/- WERE PURCHASED DID NOT LIFT THE GOODS, THE SAID RAW-MATERIALS WERE LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE AT THE RISK AND COST OF THE SAID PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE SAID GOODS. THE SAID PARTIES WERE IN FACT THE OWNER OF THE SAID GOODS. AS THE OW NERSHIP OF THE SAID STOCK WAS NOT VESTED WITH THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID STOCK CA N NEVER BE TREATED AS ASSESSEES STOCK SO AS TO ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 28(IV) OF THE ACT. IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS AVERMENT, THE ASSESSEE PLACED FOLLOWING EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO. (A) LETTER DATED 21ST OCTOBER 1996 OF APPELLANT TO QUALITY COMPONENTS ITA NO.4245/M/2011 ITA NO.4803/M/2011 M/S. ADVANCE POWER DISPLAY SYSTEMS LTD. 3 & SYSTEMS PTE. LIMITED VIDE WHICH ASSESSEE HAS REQU ESTED THE PARTY TO TAKE BACK THE MATERIAL LATEST BY 31 ST MARCH 1997 OTHERWISE THE MATERIAL WILL BE SCRAPPED BY THE APPELLANT. (B) LETTER DATED 30 TH OCTOBER, 1996 ADDRESSED BY QUALITY COMPONENTS & SYSTEMS PTE. LIMITED TO THE APPELLANT REQUESTING TH E APPELLANT TO HOLD THE RAW- MATERIAL UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. (C) LETTER DATED 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 1996 OF APPELLANT TO DYNAMIC SYSTEMS LIMITED VIDE WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS REQUESTED THE PARTY TO TAKE BACK THE MATERIAL IMMEDIATELY. (D) LETTER DATED 10 TH OCTOBER, 1996 ADDRESSED BY DYNAMIC SYSTEMS LIMITED TO THE APPELLANT REQUESTING THE APPELLANT TO HOLD THE RAW-MATERIAL UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. (E) LETTER DATED 08 TH FEBRUARY, 2002 ADDRESSED BY QUALITY COMPONENTS & SYSTEMS PTE LIMITED TO THE APPELLANT PERMITTING THE APPELLANT TO SCRAP THE SAID RAW-MATERIAL. (F) LETTER DATED 08 TH FEBRUARY, 2002 ADDRESSED BY DYNAMIC SYSTEMS LIMITE D TO THE ASSESSEE PERMITTING THE ASSESSEE TO SCRAP TH E SAID RAW-MATERIAL. (G) LETTER DATED 08 TH NOVEMBER, 2002 ISSUED BY ELECTRONICS REGIONAL TEST LABORATORY (W), ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSEE STATING T HAT THE SAID RAW-MATERIAL WAS IN OBSOLETE CONDITION WHICH COULD NOT BE UTILIZED F OR THE PURPOSE OF PRODUCTION. (H) LETTER DATED 09 TH DECEMBER, 2002 ADDRESSED TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONE R OF CUSTOMS SEEPZ, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI BY THE ASSESS EE SEEKING PERMISSION FOR DESTRUCTION OF RAW-MATERIAL. (I) LETTER DATED 23 RD DECEMBER, 2002 WRITTEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE DEPU TY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS INFORMING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DESTROYED THE SAID RAW-MATERIAL IN THE PRESENCE OF CUSTOM OFFICERS. (J) LETTER DATED 24 TH DECEMBER, 2002 ISSUED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS INFORMING THE ASSESSEE THAT ACTION OF DESTR UCTION IN RESPECT OF GOODS BELONGING TO QUALITY COMPONENTS & SYSTEMS PTE LIMIT ED VALUING RS.85,25,169/- HAS BEEN COMPLETED UNDER SUPERVISION OF CUSTOMS. (K) LETTER DATED 24 TH DECEMBER, 2002 WRITTEN BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS TO THE ASSESSEE INFORMING THAT THE ACTION O F DESTRUCTION IN RESPECT OF GOODS BELONGING TO DYNAMIC SYSTEMS LIMITED AMOUNTIN G TO RS.73,03,898/- HAS BEEN COMPLETED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF CUSTOMS. (L) COPY OF THE CHALLAN FOR PAYMENT OF CUSTOMS DUTY TOWARDS CLEARANCE OF SCRAP. (M) LETTER DATED 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2005 WRITTEN BY ACIT -8(1) (AO) TO THE D EPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, SEEPZ-SEZ FOR INFORMATION & AUTHENTICATING THE EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF OBSOLETE RAW-MATERIAL. (N) LETTER DATED 22ND MARCH, 2005 WRITTEN BY DEPU TY COMMISSIONER OF ITA NO.4245/M/2011 ITA NO.4803/M/2011 M/S. ADVANCE POWER DISPLAY SYSTEMS LTD. 4 CUSTOMS, SEEPZ-SEZ CONFIRMING THE INFORMATION & AUT HENTICATING THE EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF OBSOLETE RAW-MATERIAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT FROM THE AFORESAID E VIDENCES THAT IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING THE SAID RAW MA TERIAL ON BEHALF OF THE AFORESAID TWO PARTIES AND THE SAID RAW-MATERIAL WAS TOTALLY IN OBSOLETE CONDITION AND IN FACT THE SAID RAW-MATERIAL WAS DES TROYED IN PRESENCE OF THE CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT BEING IN SEEPZ, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SHIP ANY GOODS OUT OF THE PREMISES WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIRED PROCED URE OF THE CUSTOM AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT AFTER DESTRUCTION OF THE SAID RAW-MATERIALS, THE CUSTOM A UTHORITIES ASSESSED THE VALUE OF THE SCRAP AT RS.4,46,316/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVYING CUSTOM DUTY AND THE CUSTOM DUTY OF RS.1,50,211/- WAS RECOVERED BY T HE CUSTOM AUTHORITIES. THEREAFTER THE SCRAP WAS DISPOSED OFF BY THE CUSTOM AUTHORITIES. THE AO, HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE RAW MATERIAL WORTH RS.1,91,54,094/- W AS IN GOOD CONDITION AND WAS HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT IN CLUDED THE SAME AS ITS CLOSING STOCK. THUS, IT WAS A BENEFIT ACCRUED TO TH E ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF SEC. 28(IV) OF THE ACT AND TAXED THIS AMOUNT ACCORDINGLY . 4. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE EXP LAINED THAT THE MATERIAL NOT SHIPPED BACK TO THE VENDOR WAS RS.1,91 ,54,094/- AND THE SAME WAS NOT SUBSEQUENTLY USED BY THEM WAS DESTROYED UND ER SUPERVISION OF CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES IN SEEPZ. THIS DESTRUCTION WAS OF MATERIAL AMOUNTING TO RS.1,58,33,067/-. THERE WERE TWO CONFIRMATIONS D ATED 24 TH DECEMBER, 2002 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS F OR RS.73,07,898/- AND RS.85,25,169/-. THE BALANCE MATERIAL OF RS.33,25,0 27/- WAS UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRODUCTION AT ZERO COST. IT WAS TH EREFORE CONTENDED THAT NO ADDITIONS WERE WARRANTED IN THIS CASE AS THE PROFIT S FROM SUBSEQUENT SEATS WERE OFFERED FOR TAXATION. THE LD. CIT(A), CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.4245/M/2011 ITA NO.4803/M/2011 M/S. ADVANCE POWER DISPLAY SYSTEMS LTD. 5 OBSERVED THAT IT WAS PROVED ON THE FILE THAT THE MA TERIAL WORTH RS.1,58,33,067/- WAS DESTROYED BY THE SEEPZ BOARD A ND CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SCRAP ARISING FROM SUCH DESTRUCTION WAS SOLD AT RS.4,46,316/- AND A CU STOM DUTY OF RS.1,50,211/- WAS IMPOSED BY THE CUSTOMS AUTHORITIE S ON SUCH ITEMS. AS REGARDS GOODS OF RS.33,25,027/-, THE SAID GOODS WERE UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS PRODUCTION AND WAS OFFERED FOR TAXA TION IN THREE FINANCIAL YEARS I.E. 1997-98, 1998-99 AND 1999-2000. THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, OBSERVED THAT TO THE EXTENT THE GOODS WERE DESTROYE D, NO ADDITION WAS WARRANTED. HOWEVER, AS REGARDS THE REMAINING AMOUN T OF RS.33,25,027/-, IT WAS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D CONSUMED THE RAW MATERIAL IN ITS PRODUCTION. THEREFORE, THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 28(IV) ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION AS THE ASSESSEE WAS FULLY AWARE THAT THE ITEMS LYING WITH HIM COULD BE USED BY IT FOR ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.33,25,027/- IN RESPECT OF THE RAW MATERIAL WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. HE REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE THAT IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR THERE WAS HIGH PROFITABILITY AS RAW MATERIAL U TILIZED BY IT HAD BORNE NO COST. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, OBSERVED THAT TH E ABOVE FACTS COULD NOT BE VERIFIED FROM THE RECORD NOR THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE ADDUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS HIGH PROFITABIL ITY AS COMPARED TO EARLIER YEARS AS NO EVIDENCE IN THIS RESPECT WAS PR ODUCED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ), THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGITATING THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.33,25,027/-. WHEREAS THE REVENUE HA S COME IN APPEAL AGITATING THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE REMAINING PART OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. ITA NO.4245/M/2011 ITA NO.4803/M/2011 M/S. ADVANCE POWER DISPLAY SYSTEMS LTD. 6 5. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, WE MAY POINT OUT THAT THIS IS A FOURTH ROUND OF LITIGATION/APPEAL BEFORE US. IN THE FIRST ROUND , THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND THE CONSEQUENT ADDI TIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE A O) ON ACCOUNT OF THE MATERIAL WORTH RS.9,09,79,393/- LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE UNUS ED/NOT TAKEN BACK BY THE CONCERNED SUPPLIER. THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ADDING THE VALUE OF THE SAID MATERIAL INTO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 28(IV) OF THE ACT. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. HENCE, THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO. IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE PLEADED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE EXCESS MATERIAL WAS NOT UTILIZED RATHER THE SAME WA S DESTROYED BY THE SEEPZ BOARD AND CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO, THEREFORE, DELETED THE ADDITIONS IN THIS RESPECT. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) INVOKED HIS REVISIONAL POWERS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND HELD THAT THE AO HAD NOT CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS. HE, TH EREFORE, DIRECTED THE AO FOR DENOVO ASSESSMENT. THE MATTER TRAVELLED TO THE TRI BUNAL AGAIN. THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN EXERCISING H IS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. IN THE THIRD ROUND OF APPEAL, THE DISPUTE BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL WAS WHETHER AN APPEAL LIES TO THE LD. CIT(A) AGAINST THE ASSESS MENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL, THUS, RESTORED THE MATTER T O THE LD. CIT(A) HOLDING THAT THE APPEAL THERE FROM LIES TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND DI RECTED THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE MATTER ON MERITS. THE LD. CIT(A), AS OB SERVED ABOVE VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER, HAS DECIDED THE MATTER ON MERITS HO LDING THAT NO ADDITIONS WERE WARRANTED TO THE EXTENT THE EXCESS MATERIAL LY ING WITH THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DESTROYED BY THE SEEPZ BOARD AND CUSTOMS AUTHO RITIES. IN RESPECT OF THE REMAINING MATERIAL WORTH RS.33,25,027/- THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS. ITA NO.4245/M/2011 ITA NO.4803/M/2011 M/S. ADVANCE POWER DISPLAY SYSTEMS LTD. 7 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE P ARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A CONSISTENT PLEA DURING THE ALL ROUNDS OF LITIGATION THAT THE MATERIAL USED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN AT NO COST AND THAT THE CORRESPONDING SALES WERE OFFERED FOR TAXATION. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE CONTENTION OBSERVING THAT THE SAID FACT COULD NOT B E VERIFIED FROM THE RECORD. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BECOME THE OWNER OF THE MATERIAL IN QUESTION. THE THIRD PARTY /SUPPLIERS DID NOT COLLECT THE EXCESS MATERIAL LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE THOUGH THEY HAD REIMBURSED/PAID BACK THE COST OF MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSEE. THE EXCESS M ATERIAL LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE WAS OF NO USE TO THE ASSESSEE. OUT OF THE TOTAL MATERIAL IMPORTED WORTH RS.9,09,79,393/-, THE ASSESSEE HAD RESHIPPED THE GOODS WORTH RS.7,18,25,299/-. OUT OF THE REMAINING MATERIAL WO RTH RS.1,91,54,094/-, THE CUSTOMS & SEEPZ BOARD AUTHORITIES HAVE DESTROYED TH E MATERIAL WORTH RS.1,58,33,067/-. 7. SO FAR AS THE REMAINING MATERIAL OF RS.33,25,027 /- IS CONCERNED, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE WORTH VALUE OF THE MATE RIAL AT THE TIME OF USE WAS NOT THAT OF INVOICE VALUE. THE MATERIAL AT THE TIME OF USE HAD REDUCED TO THE SCRAP VALUE WHICH WAS USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS MANUFA CTURING ACTIVITY AND THE VALUE OF THE MATERIAL USED WAS TAKEN AT ZERO COST . THE PROFITS FROM THE CORRESPONDING SALES HAVE ALREADY BEEN OFFERED FOR T AXATION BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR VIEW, THE LD. CIT( A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.33,25,027/- AT ORIGI NAL BILL VALUE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE PROFITS FROM THE SALES OF THE GOODS AND THE RAW MATERIAL USED HAS BEEN TAKEN AT ZERO VALUE, HENCE , IN OUR VIEW, THE VALUE OF THE MATERIAL HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED AND ADDING THE BILL VALUE OF THE GOODS AT RS.33,25,027/- WOULD AMOUNT NOT ONLY TO THE EXCESS ADDITION BUT ALSO TO THE DOUBLE ADDITION. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE AO TO V ERIFY WHETHER THE RAW MATERIAL WORTH RS.33,25,027/- (AS PER THEIR ORIGINA L BILL VALUE) WAS USED IN THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AT ZERO COST AND IF THE CO RRESPONDING PROFIT FROM THE SALE OF GOODS MANUFACTURED FROM THE USE OF THE SAID RAW MATERIAL HAS BEEN ITA NO.4245/M/2011 ITA NO.4803/M/2011 M/S. ADVANCE POWER DISPLAY SYSTEMS LTD. 8 OFFERED FOR TAXATION, THEN NO ADDITIONS BE MADE IN RESPECT OF THE SAID VALUE OF RS.33,25,027/-. THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DE LETING THE REMAINING ADDITIONS IS UPHELD. 8. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.08.2016. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 25.08.2016. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.