The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Pathankot V. M/s. Makan Cement Industries, Kathua, Pathankot

ITA 541/ASR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 54120914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 09-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital receipt
• Section: 143(3); 80IB; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 541(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 PAN: AAFFM7968Z DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF VS. M/S MAKAN CEMENT I NDUSTRIES, INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PATHANKOT KATHUA, H.Q. WARE H OUSE, PATHANKOT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR RESPONDENT BY: SH. TEJ MOHAN SINGH, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING: 04.12.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.12.2013 ORDER PER BENCH 1. THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.08.2011 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), AM RITSAR, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,06,791/- MA DE UNDER THE HEAD TRANSPORT SUBSIDY AND RS. 51,519/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST SUBSIDY CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON THE PLE A THAT THE SAME IS CAPITAL RECEIPT. II. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (APPEALS) HAVE ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 2 I.T.A. NO. 541(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 ON THE PLEA THAT TRANSPORT SUBSIDY AND INTEREST SUB SIDY HAVE DIRECTED NEXUS WITH MANUFACTURING PROFIT. III. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ADD ANY OR M ORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING OF CEMENT AND CLI NKER. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.11.2003 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 4,90,957/- AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) @ 25% IN RESPECT OF ITS CEMENT UNIT AND @ 100% IN RESPECT OF THE RECENT STARTED NEW CLINKER U NIT. IT WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT ON THE RETURNED INC OME AND THE ORIGINAL SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 14.03.2006 AT AN INCOME OF RS. 5,71,500/-. SUBSEQUE NTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC TION 148 OF THE ACT ON THE RECEIPT OF INFORMATION FROM THE GENERAL MANAGER , DISTRICT INDUSTRY CENTRE, KATHUA. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS R ECEIVED TRANSPORT SUBSIDY OF RS. 8,06,791/- AND INTEREST SUBSIDY OF R S. 51,519/- WHICH HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE NOT BEEN CREDITED EITHER IN ASSE SSEES TRADING A/C OR IN P&L A/C, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUBSIDY RECE IVABLE AT RS. 83,68,252/- IN ITS BALANCE SHEET. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSPORT SUBSIDY AND INTEREST SUBSIDY. 3 I.T.A. NO. 541(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE OPINION TH AT BOTH THE TRANSPORT AND INTEREST SUBSIDY ARE REVENUE RECEIPTS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CREDITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT AND FURTHER HELD THAT SINCE THE SOU RCE OF BOTH THESE SUBSIDIES IS THE GOVERNMENT POLICY AND NOT DIRECTLY DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS REGULARLY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, AS S UCH IT IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO T HE A.O., PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT ALLOW DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF PROFITS & GAINS DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. FOR CLAI M OF DEDUCTION, THE BUSINESS OF INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING HAS TO DIRECTLY YIELD THAT PROFIT I.E. THE YIELD OF DIRECT PROFIT MUST COME ON ACCOUNT THE MAN UFACTURING AND SUBSEQUENT TRADING OF GOODS. THE RECEIPT ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSPORT AND INTEREST SUBSIDIES DOES NOT FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF DIRECT SOURCE OF THE PROFIT OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING BUT ARE IN FAC TS ANY OTHER PROFITS. THE SOURCE OF TRANSPORT SUBSIDY AND INTEREST SUBSID Y RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IN ITSELF BU T THE SOURCE IS THE POLICY OF GOVERNMENT. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE RECEIPT OF TRAN SPORT SUBSIDY AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,06,791/- AND INTEREST SUBSIDY AM OUNTING TO RS. 51,519/- HAVE BEEN ADDED BACK TO THE ALREADY DETERM INED INCOME OF RS. 5,71,500/- UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORD ER DT. 14.03.2006, BY 4 I.T.A. NO. 541(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER D ATED 16.11.2010 BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ANY DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 16.11.2010, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A), AMRITSAR, WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.08.2011, PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW, THE REVENUE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. LEARNED DR STATED THAT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E DEPARTMENT, THE DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN ONLY TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL . THE SAID APPEAL HAD BEEN PARTLY ALLOWED VIDE ORDER DATED 12.09.2012 PASSED BY THIS BENCH ON THE POINT OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT ON THE TRANSPORT SUBSIDY AND DISMISSED THE DEPA RTMENTS APPEAL ON THE GROUND OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTI ON 80IB OF THE ACT ON INTEREST SUBSIDY. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO ISSU E IS INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL WITH REGARD TO TAXABILITY OF TRANSPORT SUBSI DY ON MERCANTILE BASIS OR RECEIPT BASIS AS HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, WHICH HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THIS BENCH O N 26.08.2013 PASSED IN MA NO. 55/ASR/2013. SINCE NO GROUND WITH REGARD TO TAXABILITY OF 5 I.T.A. NO. 541(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 TRANSPORT SUBSIDY OR INTEREST SUBSIDY ON MERCANTILE BASIS OR RECEIPT BASIS, HAD BEEN RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ANY OF THE GRO UNDS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY CROSS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IN MISC. APPLICATION THAT IT WAS THE BASIC CONTENTION, WAS MISPLACED. THEREFORE, IN THESE CIRC UMSTANCES, LEARNED DR REQUESTED THAT THE EARLIER ORDER DATED 12.09.201 2 REQUIRES TO BE SUSTAINED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT MA Y BE PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E STATED THAT THIS BENCH HAS PASSED AN EX PARTE ORDER ON 12.09.2012 WITHOUT HEARING THE ASSESSEE AND PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE DEPAR TMENT. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) RAISING AS MANY AS 7 GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON THE ISSUE AT HAND WHICH ARE DULY REPRODUCED IN THE ORDER OF T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE BASIC CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) WAS WHETHER THE TRANSPORT SUBSIDY OF RS. 8,06,791/- ALREADY SHOWN AS INCOME I N THE EARLIER FINANCIAL YEARS I.E. 1998-99 AND 1999-2000 ON THE B ASIS OF MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING WAS TO BE TAXED IN THE INSTANT YEAR OR NOT. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEAL) IN PARA 8 OF HIS ORDER 6 I.T.A. NO. 541(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 DISCUSSED THE AFOREMENTIONED ISSUE AND AFTER CONSID ERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE VARIOUS DECISIONS FILED BEFORE HIM DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-COMPUTE THE RELIEF ALLOWABL E U/S 80IB AND ALSO TO VERIFY THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION WHETHER THE SUBSID IES HAVE ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED IN A.Y.S 1999-2000, 2000-01 AND 2003-04 SO AS TO ENSURE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUBJECTED TO DOUBLE TAXATION ON THE SAME LIMB OF INCOME ALREADY DECLARED BY IT AND LIKE-WISE ALREADY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHE R ARGUED THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ITS APPEALS, BY RAI SING ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE SHOULD NOT BE AGGRIE VED WITH THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX(APPEALS), AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, AND THE APPEAL HAS BECOME INFRUCT UOUS. THUS, THE SAME SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS SUCH. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE ORDER PASSED OF T HIS BENCH DATED 12.09.2012 ALONG WITH THE ORDER DATED 26.08.2013 PA SSED IN MISC. APPLICATION NO. 55(ASR)/2013 [IN I.T.A. NO. 541(ASR )/2013], IN WHICH THIS BENCH HAS RECALLED THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2012 AND FIXED THE MAIN 7 I.T.A. NO. 541(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 APPEAL I.E. I.T.A. NO. 541(ASR)/2011 FOR HEARING BE FORE THE BENCH. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAD CHALLENGED THE DELE TION OF ADDITION OF RS. 8,06,791/- MADE UNDER THE HEAD TRANSPORT SUBSI DY AND RS. 51,519/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST SUBSIDY CREDITED IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT AND ON THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. THE DEPARTMENT PLEADED THAT THE TRANSPORT SUBSIDY AND INTEREST SUB SIDY HAVE WRONGLY BEEN ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE LEARNED CIT (A) AND LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE SAME IN A DETAILED MANNE R BUT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE REGARDING TRANSPORT SUBSIDY AND INTEREST SU BSIDY AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,06,791/- AND RS. 51,519/- RESPECTIVELY, THE ASSES SEE HAS RAISED IN GROUND NOS. 1 TO 6, WHICH LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ADJUDI CATED IN PARAS NO. 8 AND 8.1 (PAGES NO. 7, 8 & 9). FOR THE SAKE OF CONVE NIENCE, THE FINDINGS ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ADJUDICATED BY LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARAS NO. 8 AND 8.1 (PAGES NO. 7, 8 & 9) ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 8. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 TO 6 BEING INTER-CONNEC TED AND PERTAINING TO THE ONLY POINT ON ANVIL I.E. AS TO WH ETHER DEDUCTION U/S 80IB IS ALLOWABLE ON THE TRANSPORT SUBSIDY AND INTE REST SUBSIDY OR NOT, AND AS TO WHETHER THE TRANSPORT SUBSIDY AND INTERES T SUBSIDY AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,06,791/- AND 51,519/- RESPECTIVE LY ADDED BACK BY THE A.O. IS CORRECT OR NOT, THE SAME ARE TAKEN UP T OGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. IT IS APPELLANTS CASE THAT SINCE I T IS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM AND BOTH THESE SUBSIDIE S I.E. TRANSPORT 8 I.T.A. NO. 541(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 SUBSIDY AND INTEREST SUBSIDY AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,06, 791/- AND RS. 51,519/- HAVE ALREADY BEEN DECLARED ON ACCRUAL BASI S IN ITS RETURN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-00 AND 2000-01 AND LIKEWISE I NTEREST SUBSIDY HAS BEEN DECLARED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, N O FURTHER ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04 BY REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT, AS THIS WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION. 8.1 NOW THE APPELLANT HAS INVITED MY ATTENTION TOWARDS THE RECENT JUDGMENT OF THE J&K HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F M/S SHREE BALAJI ALLOYS & OTHERS VS. CIT, J&K. THE HON'BLE HI GH COURT OF J&K WHILE DECIDING THE MATTER HAS DISCUSSED THE SAL IENT FEATURES OF THE NEW INDUSTRIAL POLICY, AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED TH ERETO AND STATUTORY NOTIFICATIONS ETC. THEY HAVE ALSO ANALYZE D THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR. T HEY FURTHER DISCUSSED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SAWHNEY STEEL PRESS WORKS LTD. VS. CIT [228 ITR 253] AND CIT V. P ONNI SUGAR & CHEMICALS LTD. [306 ITR 392]. THE HON'BLE HIGH COUR T FURTHER DISCUSSED IN THEIR ORDER THE CASE OF M/S MEPCO INDU STRIES LTD., MADURAI V. CIT AND ANR. CITED AT IN [2009] (7) SUPR EME 564 AND IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS AS ABOVE, HELD THAT: FOR ALL WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ABOVE, THE FINDING OF T HE TRIBUNAL ON THE FIRST ISSUE THAT THE EXCISE DUTY REFUND, INT EREST SUBSIDY AND INSURANCE SUBSIDY WERE PRODUCTION INCENTIVES, H ENCE REVENUE RECEIPT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED, BEING AGAINST THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SAHNE Y STEEL & PONNI SUGARS CASES (SUPRA). THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE INCENTIVES W ERE REVENUE RECEIPT IS, ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE, HOLDING THE INCENTIVES TO BE CAPITAL RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE FINDING ON THE FIRST ISSUE, THERE IS NO NEED TO OPINE ON THE SECOND ISSUE WHICH WAS RAISED IN THE ALTERNATIVE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE J&K HIGH COURT AND IN GIVING EFFECT TO THAT, THE TRANSPORT SUBSIDY AND INTEREST SUBSIDY ARE TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. THE A.O. IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTED RELIEF A LLOWABLE U/S 80IB 9 I.T.A. NO. 541(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. FURTHER, THE LEARNED A.O. IS D IRECTED TO VERIFY THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT THESE SUBSIDIES HAVE AL READY BEEN ASSESSED EARLIER IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-00, 2000-01 AND 20 03-04 RESPECTIVELY SO AS TO ENSURE THAT THE APPELLANT IS MADE SUBJECT TO DOUBLE TAXATION ON THE SAME LIMB OF INCOME ALREADY DECLARED BY IT AND LIKE-WISE ALREADY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT . HENCE, A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,58,310/- (RS. 8,06,791 + RS. 51,519 RESPECTIVELY) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY DELETED . THE LEARNED A.O. IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO ALLOW APPELLANTS DEDUC TION CLAIMED U/S 80IB OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AS THE SAME HAVE DIRECT NE XUS WITH ITS MANUFACTURING PROFITS. BY THIS WAY, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 TO 6 ARE DISPOSED OFF IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. 8. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID FINDINGS GIVEN BY LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LEARNED FIRST APPELLANT AUTHORITY HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ON THE BASIS OF DECISION OF HON'BLE JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S SHREE BALAJI ALLOYS & OTHERS VS. CIT AN D ANOTHER REPORTED IN (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J&K) AND TREATED TH E TRANSPORT SUBSIDY AND INTEREST SUBSIDY AS CAPITAL RECEIPT I N THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. BUT KEEPING IN VIEW THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCE D BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT WHETHER THE TRANSPORT SUBSIDY OF RS. 8,06,791/- HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN AS INCOME IN THE EARLIER FINANCIAL YEARS I.E. 1998-99 AND 1999-2000 ON THE B ASIS OF MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING OR TO BE TREATED IN THE INSTANT YEAR, 10 I.T.A. NO. 541(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 LEARNED CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE COMPUTED THE RELIEF ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT ONLY AFTER VERIFYING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS THAT THESE SUBSIDIES HAV E ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED EARLIER IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-00, 2 000-01 AND 2003-04 RESPECTIVELY SO AS TO ENSURE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS MADE SUBJECT TO DOUBLE TAXATION ON THE SAME LIMB OF INCO ME ALREADY DECLARED BY IT AND LIKE-WISE ALREADY ACCEPTED BY T HE DEPARTMENT. 9. WE FURTHER MADE IT CLEAR TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R BY GIVING DIRECTION TO COMPLY THE DIRECTION OF LEARNED CIT(A), AMRITSAR, GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.08.2 011 WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HI MACHAL PRADESH IN THE CASE OF M/S. KIRAN ENTERPRISES REPOR TED 32 DTR 11/228 CTR 101; M/S MAHARANI PACKAGING PVT. LTD. RE PORTED IN 55 DTR 340, AND THE ORDER OF HON'BLE JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S SHREE BALAJI ALLOYS & OTHE RS VS. CIT (SUPRA) 10. IN VIEW OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT CHALLEN GED THE PARTICULAR FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A). BUT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, 11 I.T.A. NO. 541(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE OUGHT TO BE DECIDED WITH THE S ETTLED LAW AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF CONCLUDING OF HEARING. WIT H THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS AND DIRECTIONS, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH DECEMBER, 2013 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17 TH DECEMBER, 2013 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: M/S MAKAN CEMENT INDUSTRIES, KATHUA, H.Q. WARE HOUSE, PATHANKOT 2. THE DCIT, CIRCLE, PATHANKOT 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.