ACIT, Cir.3, Nanded, Nanded V. Shri Uttam Bhagwanrao Jadhav (Patil), Latur

ITA 481/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9739 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANN KAPTHUAMA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Condonation of delay; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER , AND SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA.NO.481, 480/PN/2011 AND 1085/PN/2007 (ASSTT. YEAR : 2003-04, 2002-03 AND 2001-02) ACIT, CIRCLE-3, NANDED. .. APPELLANT VS. SHRI UTTAM BHAGWANRAO JADHAV (PATIL), PROP. OF SATYA SAI CONSTRUCTION, LATUR. .. RESPONDENT AND CO NO.15/PN/2011, 16/PN/2011 AND 34/PN/2010 (ASSTT. YEAR : 2002-03, 2003-04 AND 2001-02) SHRI UTTAM BHAGWANRAO JADHAV (PATIL), PROP. OF SATYA SAI CONSTRUCTION, LATUR. .. APPELLANT VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, NANDED. .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K.KULKARNI DEPARTMENT BY : MS.ANN KAPTHUAMA DATE OF HEARING : 22.08.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.08.2012 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM : ALL THESE APPEALS OF REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIONS OF ASSESSEE PERTAIN TO RESPECTIVE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR SAME ASSE SSEE, SO THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF C ONVENIENCE. IN ITA.NO.481/PN/2011, THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS A PPEAL ON FOLLOWING GROUND: 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE HON 'BLE CIT(A)-II, AURANGABAD, HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS.29,09,542/- IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCT ION U/S.80IA(4)(A)(I), AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A REGIST ERED COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, AT THE TIME OF CLAIMING OF SUCH DEDUCTION. 2. AT THE OUTSET OF HEARING, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE FOR REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF AB OUT 4 YEARS IN FILING REVENUE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2003-04 AND A.Y. 200 2-03. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO I TS CONDONATION APPLICATION DATED 12.04.2011 WHEREIN DELAY IN FILIN G OF THE APPEAL IS ATTRIBUTED TO INADVERTENT MISTAKES OF CONCERNED REV ENUE AUTHORITIES. WE ARE AWARE THAT IN A BIG DEPARTME NT LIKE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF COMMUNICA TION GAP DUE TO VARIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE REASONS AND CAUSE OF REVENUE SHOULD NOT SUFFER FOR SUCH INADVERTENT MISTAKES COMMITTED DUE TO COMMUNICATION GAP BETWEEN THE CONCERNED REVENUE AUT HORITIES. TAKING LIBERAL APPROACH, WE CONDONE THE DELAY. SIM ILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LANKA VENKATESWARLU (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS VS. ST ATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (2011) 4 SCC 363, IN THE CASE OF BALWANT SI NGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS VS. JAGDISH SINGH & ORS. AIR 20 10 SC 3043. WE HAVE ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE CASE OF P OST MASTER GENERAL AND OTHERS VS. LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN (2012) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 563, WHERE IN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT CONDONATION OF DELAY IS AN EXCEPTION AND SHOULD NOT BE USED AS AN ANTICIPATED BENEFIT FOR GO VERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND OFFERING USUAL EXPLANATION THAT FIL E WAS KEPT PENDING DUE TO PROCEDURAL RED TAPE. THE CASE BEFOR E US IS NOT A CASE OF PROCEDURAL RED TAPISM BUT OF INADVERTENT MI STAKE ON PART OF REVENUE OFFICERS. INADVERTENT MISTAKE CAN BE ATTRI BUTED TO SO MANY FACTS. TAKING OVERALL VIEW OF THE SITUATION, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN BOTH THE YEARS AND APPEALS ARE BEING DECIDED ON MER IT. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN BUSINES S OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, I.E., A.Y. 2003-04, ASSESSEE ALSO DERIVED INCOME FROM GHARNI B RIDGE PROJECT 3 AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.29,09,542/- IN RESPECT OF PROFITS OF GHARNI BRIDGE PROJECT AND ACCORDINGLY RETURN WAS FI LED DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5,44,574/-. THE RETURN WAS SCRU TINIZED AND THE INCOME WAS ASSESSED U/S.143(3) AT RS.61,58,644/- IN CLUDING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.8,43,837/- AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF PLOT AMOUNTING TO RS.7,34, 221/-. AMONG OTHER ADDITIONS, ONE OF THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON AC COUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM U/S.80IA(1) OF RS.29,09,542/- . WITH REGARD TO THIS CLAIM U/S.80IA(1), WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS CONSTRUCTED BRIDGE AT GHARNI, DISTRICT LATUR, UNDER BUILD OPERA TE TRANSFER (BOT) BASIS ALLOTTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHT RA. IN THIS SCHEME, CONTRACTOR HAS TO CONSTRUCT A BRIDGE FROM T HEIR OWN FUNDS AND GOVERNMENT GIVES PERMISSION TO COLLECT TOLL FRO M THE TRANSPORTERS ON THAT ROAD. AFTER SOME PERIOD BRIDG E HAS TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE GOVERNMENT. THE PUBLIC WORKS D EPARTMENT ISSUES WORK ORDER FOR BOT WORK AND GIVES RATES AND PERIOD FOR COLLECTION TO ASSESSEE. AS PER WORK ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE CONSTRUCTED THE BRIDGE FROM THEIR OWN FUNDS AND CLAIMED THE INC OME FROM TOLL COLLECTION AS EXEMPT U/S.80IA. HOWEVER, THIS EXEMP TION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN HI S ORDER U/S.143(3) DATED 30.12.2005 IN DETAIL. THE MAIN RE ASON FOR DENIAL OF THE EXEMPTION U/S.80IA HAS BEEN STATED THAT ASSE SSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND NOT A COMPANY AND RUNS ITS BUSINESS IN THE NAME OF VAISHALI CONSTRUCTION, PROPRIETORSHIP OF SHRI U.B.J ADHAV. AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FULFIL THE CONDITION UNDER SUB-SEC TION (4)(I)(A) OF SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT, IN AS MUCH AS ENTERPRISE I S REQUIRED TO BE OWNED BY A COMPANY REGISTERED IN INDIA OR BY CONSOR TIUM OF SUCH COMPANY, THE EXEMPTION WAS DENIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY WHO, AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSIONS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSE RVING AS UNDER: 3.6. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT AT THE TIME O F MAKING THE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR A PROJECT O N B.O.T. BASIS IT IS NOT NECESSARY THE ENTERPRISE IS OWNED B Y THE COMPANY. WHAT IS ESSENTIAL IS THAT AT THE TIME OF CLAIMING THE 4 DEDUCTION THE ENTERPRISE MUST BE OWNED BY THE COMPA NY. IN THE PRESENT CASE AS SOON AS THE APPELLANT ENTERED I NTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE GOVERNMENT IN THE NAME OF VAISHALI CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. AND LATER ON CHANGED TO SATYA SAI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. THE APPELLANT APPLIED TO TH E REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES FOR THE REGISTRATION PROPOSING THE FOL LOWING NAME OF THE COMPANY: I) M/S.VAISHALI CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. II) M/S.SATYA SAI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. III) M/S.VAISHALI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. IV) M/S.VITHALSAI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 3.7. THIS APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED BY REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES ON 20-09-1998. THE SAME HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. HOWEVER, THERE WAS DELAY IN GRANTING THE REGISTRATI ON TO THE COMPANY BECAUSE OF WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS DENIED T HE EXEMPTION U/S.80IA. BUT FINALLY THE ENTERPRISE WAS REGISTERED AS PER THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION SUBMITTED B Y THE APPELLANT. 3.8. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, S PEECH OF THE HON'BLE FINANCE MINISTER, THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE H ON'BLE ITAT QUOTED SUPRA AND THE OTHER SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IT IS TRUE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FULFILLED CATEGORICALLY ALL THE C ONDITION AS MENTIONED U/S.80-IA AND THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED U/S.80-IA(4)(I)(A) HAS ALSO BEEN LATER ON FULFILLED BY THE APPELLANT AS THE ENTERPRISES AS ON DATE IS OWNED BY THE COMPANY. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE APPELLANT IS E NTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S.80-IA IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME FROM G HARNI BRIDGE PROJECT. HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A. O. ON THIS POINT IS HEREBY DELETED. 3.1. SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE US BY REVENUE, IN TER ALIA STATED THAT CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.29,09, 542/- IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4)(A)(I) OF THE ACT AS ASSESSEE WAS NOT A REGISTERED COMPANY UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1 956 AT THE TIME OF CLAIMING SUCH DEDUCTION. ON THE OTHER HAND , LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HEAVILY RELIED ON THE DEC ISION OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT APPEAL BY REVENUE BE DISM ISSED. 3.2. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA DEALS WITH DEDUCTIO N IN RESPECT OF PROFITS AND GAINS FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OR EN TERPRISE ENGAGED IN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT. THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 80IA(4)(I)(A) APPLICABLE IN PRESENT CASE, READS AS UNDER: 5 (4) THIS SECTION APPLIES TO - ( I ) ANY ENTERPRISE CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF ( I ) DEVELOPING OR ( II ) OPERATING AND MAINTAINING OR ( III ) DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING ANY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY WHICH FULFI LS ALL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, NAMELY : ( A ) IT IS OWNED BY A COMPANY REGISTERED IN INDIA OR B Y A CONSORTIUM OF SUCH COMPANIES OR BY AN AUTHORITY OR A BOARD OR A CORPORATION OR ANY OTHER BODY ESTABLISHE D OR CONSTITUTED UNDER ANY CENTRAL OR STATE ACT. (B) ..... (C) ..... THE OBJECTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE IS THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND NOT A COMPANY AND BUSINESS WAS IN TH E NAME AND STYLE OF VAISHALI CONSTRUCTIONS UNDER PROPRIETORSHI P OF SHRI U.B.JADHAV, THE ASSESSEE. CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WA S FOUND INCORRECT BECAUSE THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (4) (I)(A) OF SECTION 80IA IN AS MUCH AS THE PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO BE OW NED BY A COMPANY REGISTERED IN INDIA OR BY CONSORTIUM OF SUC H COMPANY. ASSESSEE WAS AN INDIVIDUAL AND NOT COMPANY AT THE R ELEVANT POINT OF TIME. BUSINESS WAS IN THE NAME OF VAISHALI CONS TRUCTIONS, UNDER PROPRIETORSHIP OF SHRI U.B.JADHAV. HENCE, IT COULD NOT CLAIM SUCH DEDUCTION. THE LANGUAGE OF SUB-SECTION (4)(I)(A) O F SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT IS CLEAR WHICH IMPOSES THE CONDITION FOR AL LOWANCE OF DEDUCTION ON ANY ENTERPRISE CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF ( I ) DEVELOPING OR ( II ) OPERATING AND MAINTAINING OR ( III ) DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING ANY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY WHICH IS OW NED BY COMPANY REGISTERED IN INDIA OR A CONSORTIUM OF SUCH COMPANY . THUS, THE INCOME EARNED FROM GHARNI BRIDGE PROJECT IS, THEREF ORE, TERMED TO BE INCOME FROM BUSINESS, NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(1) OF THE ACT. AS PER CONDITION PRESCRIBED BY THE LAW I TSELF, THE ASSESSEE NOT BEING A COMPANY AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, SO THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4)(I)(A) IS NOT AVAILABLE TO HIM. IN VIE W OF THIS, ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS RESTORED. 4. IN ITA.NO.480/PN/2011 FOR A.Y. 2002-03, FACTS BE ING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RESTORED. 6 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS IN C.O.NO.16/PN/2011 ARISING FROM ITA.NO.481/PN/2011 F OR A.Y. 2003-04, CO.NO.15/PN/2011 ARISING FROM ITA.NO.480/P N/2011 FOR A.Y. 2002-03, AND CO.NO.34/PN/2010 ARISING FROM ITA.NO.1085/PN/2007 FOR A.Y. 2001-02. 5.1. IN C.O.NO.16/PN/2011, THE ASSESSEE HAS OPPOSED THE CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 4 YEARS, INTER ALIA STATED THAT THERE IS NO PRAYER FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN THE APPEAL MEMO LEAVE ASIDE FACTUAL DISCLOSURE ABOUT DELAYED FILING OF APPEAL. SUCH INORDINATE DELAY WITHOUT ANY SUFFICIENT CAUSE BE NOT CONDONED AND APPEAL BE NOT ADMITTED. WE HAVE DEALT THIS ISSUE OF CONDONAT ION OF DELAY IN PARA 2 OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, THE SAME IS NOT REPEATED HERE BECAUSE THE SAME HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE BY THE SAID ORDER IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE. 5.2. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY WAY OF GROUNDS 2 OF C ROSS OBJECTIONS IS WITH REGARD TO ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S.80I A(4)(I)(A) WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE BY US WHILE DECIDING THE REVENU ES APPEAL ON MERIT IN PARA 3 OF THIS ORDER. GROUND NO.3 IS WITH REGARD TO DEPRECIATION. THIS BEING LEGAL ISSUE CAN BE RAISED BEFORE US. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THIS ISSUE IS RESTORED TO ASSE SSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AS PER FACTS AND LAW. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE C.O. IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5.3. WITH REGARD TO C.O.NO.15/PN/2011, SIMILAR ISSU ES AROSE IN CO.NO.16/PN/2011 ARISING FROM ITA.NO.481/PN/2011 FO R A.Y. 2002-03. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, FOLLOWING THE SAME R EASONING, THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FOR A.Y. 2002-03 ARE PARTLY ALLOWE D AS INDICATED IN PARA 5.2 OF THIS ORDER. 6. IN ITA.NO.1085/PN/2007, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED T HE FOLLOWING GROUND: 1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEA RNED CIT(A)-II, AURANGABAD, HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS.30,60,052/- IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCT ION U/S.80IA(I)(A) AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A REGISTERED COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, AT THE TIME OF CLAIMING OF SUCH DEDUCTION. 7 6.1. THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING ITS ORDER IN A.Y. 2003-04 HAS ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. WE HAVE DISCUSSED AND DECIDED T HE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2003-04 VIDE PARA 3 OF THIS ORDER WHEREIN ORDE R OF THE CIT(A) HAS BEEN SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS BEEN RESTORED. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING SAME R EASONING, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THAT OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS RESTORED. 7. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTIONS HAS SUPPORT ED THE ALLOWABILITY OF CLAIM OF ASSESSEE U/S.80IA. THIS I SSUE HAS BEEN DEALT BY US IN PARA 3 OF THIS ORDER. OTHER ISSUE R AISED BY WAY OF CROSS OBJECTIONS IS WITH REGARD TO FRAMING OF ASSES SMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147. A NOTICE U/S.148 WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 16.01.2006. FURTHER NOTICE U/S .143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 17.02.2006. TO ADORE JURISDICTION OVER TH E CASE, NOTICE U/S.143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 16.06.2006 FOLLOWED BY NOT ICES U/S.142(1) ON 17.07.2006, 06.10.2006 AND 14.11.2006. IN RESPO NSE TO NOTICES ISSUED, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESS EE ATTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME AND EXPLAINED THE CASE. ON 28.12.2006 , THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ALONGWITH HIS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ATT ENDED THE PROCEEDINGS. BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE PRODUCED ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE WITH SUPPORTING VOUCHERS. SAME WAS VERIFI ED AND ON VERIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS, ADDIT ION TO THE TOTAL INCOME WAS MADE INCLUDING DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OF RS.30,60,052/-. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE ARE NOT INCLIN ED TO HOLD THAT ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW BECAUSE IT WAS VALIDLY REO PENED BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147. REGARDING THE OBJECTION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO INVOKING PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 292BB IS NOT WELL FOUNDED BECAUSE IT HAS NOT AGITAT ED THE SAME AT RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS DECIDED THE ISSUE AFTER TAKING ALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INTO CONSIDERATION. REGARDING ALTERNATE CLAIM RAIS ED BY WAY OF CROSS OBJECTIONS IN GROUND NO.5, IT WAS SUBMITTED O N BEHALF OF ASSESSEE THAT IN CASE NO CLAIM IS ALLOWABLE U/S.80I A OF THE ACT, THE 8 EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND BROUGHT FORWARD AS WIP BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN THE YEAR 2001-02. 8. THIS IS A LEGAL ISSUE WHICH CAN BE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AT ANY STAGE. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAD NO OCCASION TO ADJUDICATE BECAUSE SAME WAS NOT AGITATED BEFORE THEM. THE IS SUE BEING LEGAL, THE SAME MAY BE AGITATED BEFORE US AS WELL. SINCE THE FACTS REGARDING THIS CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE IS NOT COMING F ROM THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITY SO IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE RE STORE THIS ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE TH E SAME AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSE SSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA.NO. 4 81, 480/PN/2011 AND 1085/PN/2007 ARE ALLOWED AS INDICAT ED ABOVE, WHILE CROSS OBJECTIONS IN CO.NO. 15/PN/2011 AND 16/ PN/2011 ARE DISMISSED AS INDICATE ABOVE, WHILE CO.NO. 34/PN /2010 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012. SD/- SD/- ( G.S.PANNU ) ( SHAILENDRA KUMAR YAD AV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER GSPS PUNE, DATED THE 27 TH AUGUST, 2012. COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3, NANDED. 3. THE CIT(A)-II, AURANGABAD. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR A BENCH, PUNE. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE.