U.P.Samaj Kalyan Nirman Nigam Limited , Lucknow V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

ITA 574/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 57423714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R R AGARWAL SHRI S C AGARWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 145; 154

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.821 & 574/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009 - 10 U.P. SAMAJ KALYAN NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED, TC - 46/V, VIBHUTI KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW. PAN:AAACU1932C VS. DY.C.I.T., RANGE - VI, LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.108/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009 - 10 DY.C.I.T., RANGE - VI, LUCKNOW. VS. U.P. SAMAJ KALYAN NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED, TC - 46/V, VIBHUTI KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW. PAN:AAACU1932C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.03/LKW/2013 (IN ITA NO. ITA NO.108/LKW/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009 - 10 U.P. SAMAJ KALYAN NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED, TC - 46/V, VIBHUTI KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW. PAN:AAACU1932C VS. DY.C.I.T., RANGE - VI, LUCKNOW. (OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI R. R. AGARWAL, ADVOCATE SHRI S. C. AGARWAL, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY SHRI RAJIV JAIN, CIT, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 15/09/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 8 /11/2014 2 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. OUT OF THIS BUNCH, THERE ARE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE BOTH FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, ONE ARISING OUT OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) AND THE SECOND APPEAL IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 154 OF THE ACT. THERE IS ONE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ALSO FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THERE IS ONE CROSS OBJE CTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR. ALL THE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTION WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. T HE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL NO.821/LKW/2013 ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES WERE UNJUSTIFIED AND WRONG IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS. 2. THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES WERE WRONG IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED IN THE SAME MANNER IN EARLIER YEARS CONSISTENTLY WERE ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THUS THE AUTHORITIES WERE WRONG IN TAKING AN ADVERSE VIEW ON THE SAID MA TTER. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) WAS WRONG TO HOLD AND IN COMING TO A PERVERSE FINDING THAT 'THERE ARE CONCLUSIVE REASONS TO REJECT THE ASSESSEE'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY NOT INCLUDED THE CENTAGE RECEIVABLE ON WIP ONLY IN ORDE R TO SUPPRESS ITS TAXABLE INCOME AND ALSO IN STATING FURTHER THE OPENING BALANCE OF WIP HAS NEVER BEEN CONSIDERED FOR TAX IN ANY PAST YEAR AND THE CENTAGE ON THE SAME HAS NEVER BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, HENCE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF OPENING WIP WAS CORRECTLY MADE. 4. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL) WAS WRONG IN UPHOLDING THE VIEW OF THE LEARNED AO SO AS TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF 3 ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT INDICATING AS TO HOW THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT CORRECT OR COMPLETE F OR COMPUTING THE INCOME. 5. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) - II LUCKNOW WAS WRONG AND UNJUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.14,05,710/ - RELATING TO PRIOR YEAR EXPENSES CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 6. THAT T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) - II LUCKNOW WAS WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.96,337/ - CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. 7. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) - II LUCKNOW WAS WRONG AND UNJUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,06,03,40,887/ - O N ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATING THE AMOUNT OF CENTAGE RECEIVABLE ON WORK IN PROGRESS (WIP) AT 12.5% WHICH ACCORDING TO TAX AUTHORITIES IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 8. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) - II LUCKNOW WAS WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,06,03,40,887 / - WITHOUT ANY VALID REASON. 9. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) - II LUCKNOW WAS WRONG IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE OPENING BALANCE OF WORK IN PROGRESS (WIP) RS.8,23,80,91,932/ - WAS RELATING TO EARLIER YEARS AND IN NO CASE COULD BE THE BASIS FOR WORKING OUT THE PROFIT @12.5% ON SUCH BALANCE WHICH WAS ALREADY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSES OF TAX IN EARLIER YEARS. 10. THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIE S WERE WRONG IN RELYING ON THE CASE OF BRITISH PAINTS INDIA LTD 188 ITR 44 SC WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE FACTS IN THE CITED CASE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER THIS APPEAL . 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO.574/L KW/2012 ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) WAS WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,48,27,27,094/ - WHICH WAS IN THE NATURE OF 4 MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) WAS WRONG IN HOLDING THAT THE ISSUE UNDER REFERENCE WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS THERE AS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) WAS WRONG IN HOLDING THAT ON THE SAME ISSUE AN APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE HIM UNDER ANOTHER SECTION OF THE ACT IN AS MUCH AS THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) AND 154 OF THE ACT ARE DISTINCT AND SEPARATE. 4. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) WAS WRONG IN HOLDING AS ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ISSUE UNDER REFERENCE IS NOT COVERED APPARENT FROM THE RECOR D', BUT REQUIRES PROCESS OF ELUCIDATION, ARGUMENT OR DEBATE. 5. THAT VARIOUS CASE LAW CITED BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT FACTS OF THE CASE AND WERE WR ONGLY APPLIED. 6. THAT POWER TO RECTIFY MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD IS MANDATORY AND THE AUTHORITIES COMMITTED WRONG IN NOT EXERCISING THE POWER WHICH RESULTED IN GROSS INJUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. THAT THE LEARNED AO PASSED THE ORDER IN MAKING IN ADDITION OF RS.8,48,27,27,094/ - BY OVERLOOKING THE STATUTORY PROVISION WHICH IS CLEARLY A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD WHICH WAS WRONGLY UPHELD BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL). 8. THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES ARE AGAINST FACTS AND LAW. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE STATEMENTS SHOWING THE WORKING OF CENTAGE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 271 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE SAME WORKING FOR THE PRECEDING YEARS FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 TO 2008 - 09 ARE AVAIL ABLE ON PAGES 362 TO 367 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT CENTAGE WAS CONSIDERED IN EACH YEAR AND THEREAFTER , THE CLOSING WORK IN PROGRESS WAS DETERMINED AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED. AT THIS JUNCTUR E, THE 5 BENCH WANTED TO KNOW THE BASIS OF ACCOUNTING FOR CENTAGE CHARGES AND SUPERVISORY CHARGES. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH CHARGES ARE AS PER THE CONTRACT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT CENTAGE CHARGES ARE NOT FIXED AN D IT IS VARYING ON THE BASIS OF TYPE OF CONTRACT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT CERTAIN STATE GOVERNMENT WORKS ARE ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON WHICH NO CENTAGE IS ADMISSIBLE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THESE WORKS INCLUDE M.P./M.L.A. WORKS ALLOTTED BY THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORITIES WORKS AND NON CENTAGE WORKS. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS BOUND TO EXECUTE THESE NON CENTAGE WORKS ALSO. THE BENCH WANTED TO KNOW AS TO WHETHER THE WORKING OF CENTAGE CHARGES AND SUPERVISORY CHARGES AS PER EACH CONTRACT IS AVAI LABLE ON RECORD. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SUCH WORKINGS ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGES 272 TO 313 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON GOING THROUGH THESE PAGES, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE BENCH THAT ON A TURNOVER OF RS.7,699.92 LAC S , IT IS STATED THAT THERE IS NO CENTAGE CHARGES ALLOWABLE. AS PER THESE DETAILS, THIS INCLUDES MAINLY SUCH PROJECTS WHICH ARE ON ACCOUNT OF M.L.A./M.P. N IDHI BUT FOR SIMILAR CONTRACTS ON ACCOUNT OF M.L.A./M.P. NIDHI, CENTAGE CHARGES ARE SHOWN IN SOME CASE S AS PER THE DETAILS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 277 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. AND THE ASSESSEE WILL SUBMIT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE FULL DETAIL S REGARDING CENTAGE/SUPERVISORY CHARGES AS PER CONTRACT AND THE SAME MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACTUAL BASIS. 5. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. W E FIND THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY APPLYING THE BLANKET RATE OF 12.5% FOR CENTAGE CHARGES WHEREAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ON M.L.A./M.P. NIDHI, NO CENTAGE CHARGES IS RECEIVABLE BUT AS PER THE DETAILS AVAILABLE, WE FIND THAT IN RESPECT OF SOME CONTRACTS IN RESPECT OF M.L.A./M.P. NIDHI , THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN CENTAGE CHARGES AS CAN BE SEEN ON PAGE NO. 277 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 6 HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE WORKING OF THE ASSESSEE, AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK, IS NOT PROPER AND THE BASIS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALSO NOT SCIENTIFIC . HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ENTIRE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH DECISION. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS ALONG WITH THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF RECEIVEABILITY OF CENTAGE/SUPERVISORY CHARGES AS PER CONTRACTS AND THEREAFTER , THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD DETERMINE THE EXACT VALUE OF CENTAGE/SUPERVISORY CHARGES AND CLOSING STOCK OF WI P. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN PROCEEDINGS U/S 143 (3) STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. REGARDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 154 OF THE ACT I.E. I.T.A. NO.574/LKW/2012, WE FIND THAT THE DISPUTE IN THIS APPEAL IS ALSO SAME I.E. REGARDING ADDITION OF RS.1,06,03,40,887/ - IN RESPECT OF CENTAGE RECEIVABLE AND SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS ALREADY RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER BY US FOR FRESH DECISION, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RECTIFICATION U/S 154 DOES NOT SURVIVE AND ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMIS SED. 10. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I.E. I.T.A. NO.108/LKW/2013. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEAL) - II , LUCKNOW HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.4,95,42,049/ - ON ACCOUNT OF EARNED INTEREST OF UNUTILIZED FUND PAYABLE TO U.P. GOVT. IN DOING SO HE FAILED TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF HON'BLE I TAT, LUCKNOW BENCH IN THE CASE OF U.P. POLICE AWAS NIGAM LTD. FOR A.Y. 1 995 - 96 TO 1998 - 99 A ND 2002 - 03 AND 2003 - 04 IN WHICH INTEREST INCOME 7 EARNED ON ADVANCES FROM GOVERNMENT WAS TREATED AS INCOME OF ASSESSEE. FURTHER, LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT AND REMAND PROCEEDING ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT IT HAS EVER REMITTED THE INTEREST TO THE GOVT. 11. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO. 78 OF THE PAPER BOOK BEING COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 03/04/80 AS PER WHICH IF ANY INTEREST INCOME IS EARNED FROM BANK OUT OF GRANT GIVEN BY THE U.P. GOVERNMENT, SUCH INTEREST INCOME SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF THE CORPORATION I.E. THE ASSESSEE BU T IT SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS GRANT GIVEN BY THE U.P. GOVERNMENT TO SUCH CORPORATION. IN HIS REJOINDER, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED D .R. OF THE REVENUE THAT AS PER PAGE NO. 45 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,29,58,125/ - TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST RECEIVED FROM THE BANK AND A FURTHER AMOUNT OF RS.34,07,81,937/ - IS SHOWN AS CURRENT LIABILITY IN SCHEDULE - 6, AS CAN BE SEEN ON PAGE NO. 46 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THIS IS ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST OF UNUTILIZED FUN D (PAYABLE TO U.P. GOVERNMENT). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, IT HAS TO BE EXAMINED THAT INTEREST INCOME IS EARNED ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON UNUTILIZED FUND (PAYABLE TO U.P. GOVERNMENT). 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT OUT OF TOTAL AMOUNT SHOWN AS INTEREST ON UNUTILIZED FUND AT RS.34,07,81,937/ - AS AGAINST OPENING BALANCE OF RS.29,12,39,888/ - , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,95,42,098/ - AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS AM OUNT IS DIFFERENCE IN OPENING BALANCE AND CLOSING BALANCE. THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ON THE BASIS THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 98 - 99 ALSO , THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BUT NO FINDING IS GIVEN BY HIM THAT IN FACT , THIS AMOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME IS EARNED IN RESPECT OF INTEREST ON UNUTILIZED FUND (PAYABLE TO U.P. GOVERNMENT). HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND 8 RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER EXAMINING THIS C ONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE U.P. GOVERNMENT, FROM WHOM THE GRANT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, IF ANY UNUTILIZED FUND IS KEPT IN BANK AND ANY INTEREST IS EARNED THEN SUCH INTEREST INCOME IS NOT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT H AS TO BE TREATED AS EXTRA GRANT BY THE GOVERNMENT. FOR THIS , THE ASSESSEE SHOULD MAKE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE TOTAL WORKING OF THIS INTEREST INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE SHOULD ESTABLISH THAT THIS INTEREST INCOME IS IN FACT REGARDING KEEPIN G OF THE UNUTILIZED FUND PROVIDED BY U.P. GOVERNMENT IN BANK. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD ALSO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE THAT SUCH INTEREST EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN IN FACT RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE TO U.P. GOVERNMENT OR THE U.P. GOVERNMENT HAS APPROVED THAT SU CH INTEREST SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS EXTRA GRANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD PASS NECESSARY ORDER AS PER LAW AS PER ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 13. IN THE RESULT, T HE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. NOW WE TAKE UP THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CROSS OBJECTIONS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. A.O. WAS WRONG IN RELYING ON THE CASE OF U.P. POLICE AVAS NIGAM LTD., SAID TO HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY ITAT, LUCKNOW BENCH WITHOUT INDICATING THE CITATION. 2. THAT THE LD. A.O. IS WRONG IN STATING THAT 'DURING THE ASSESSMENT AND REMAND PROCEEDING ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW T HAT IT HAS EVER REMITTED THE INTEREST TO THE GOVT.' 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) WAS WRONG IN NOT DECIDING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS TAKEN BEFORE HIM : - 9 NO.4 'THAT THE LD. A.O. ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.4,95,42,049/ - AS INTEREST EARNED ON THE UTILIZ ATION FUNDS INASMUCH AS SUCH INTEREST BELONGS TO THE GOVERNMENT OF U.P. AND CANNOT BE CALLED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE.' NO. 5. 'THAT THE TREATMENT OF SUCH INCOME BY THE APPELLANT DONE CONSISTENTLY IN THE MANNER AS DONE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS WRONGLY TAXED AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY . NO.6 'THAT THE LD. A.O. WAS WRONG IN STATING THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT GIVE SPECIFIC RESPONSE TO THE QUERY RAISED AND COMPLETE DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED TO THE LD. A.O.' 14.1 FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THESE GROUNDS ARE MERELY IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS INFRUCTUOUS AND DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 16. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO.821 AND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE REMAINING APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS CROSS OBJECTION OF THE AS SESSEE ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 8 /11/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR