THE ACIT, 2(1), Bhopal V. M/S. M P WARE HOUSING AND LOGISTIC CORPORATION, Bhopal

ITA 586/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5843 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRINIWAS AGRAWAL CAS
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure

Judgement Text

ITA NO.586 OF 2013 M.P. WAREHOUSING AND LOGISTIC 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.586/IND/2013 A.Y. 2010-11 ACIT-2(1), BHOPAL :: APPELLANT VS M.P. WARE HOUSING & LOGISTIC CORPORATION, BHOPAL PAN AADCM 7742 B :: RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY SHRI R.A. VERMA, DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI AMIT JAIN AND SHRI SHRINIWAS AGRAWAL, CAS DATE OF HEARING 20.1.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20.1.2016 O R D E R PER SHRI B.C. MEENA, AM THIS APPEALS IS FILED BY THE REVENUE CHALLENGING T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL, DATED 10.7.2013. 2. FIRST GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,13,15,586/- MADE B Y THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF OVERHEAD EXPENDITURE ON CONSTRUCTION TREATING IT AS A REVENUE EXPENSES. FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A STATE CORPORATION ESTABLISHED UNDER THE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ACT, 1962 AND ENGAGED ITA NO.586 OF 2013 M.P. WAREHOUSING AND LOGISTIC 2 IN WAREHOUSING ACTIVITIES, CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND PROCUREMENT OF WHEAT ON BEHALF OF M.P. STATE GOVERNMENT. DURING AS SESSMENT PROCEEDING, IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,13,15,586/- UNDER THE HEAD SALARY, ALLOWANCE AND OTHER EXPENSES CONSTRUCTION. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH AT THE IT INCURRED TOTAL OVERHEAD EXPENDITURE OF CONSTRUCTION DIVISION AT RS.1,30,75,571/-. OUT OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE, AN AMOUNT OF RS.17,59, 985/- WAS CAPITALISED, WHICH WAS USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WORK A ND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.1,13,15,586/- WHICH WAS INCURRED FOR O THER MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR ACTIVITIES AND SUPERVISION OF CONSTRUCTI ON WORK ASSIGNED BY OUTSIDE AGENCIES WAS DEBITED TO P & L ACCOUNT AS RE VENUE EXPENDITURE. THE AO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASS ESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE. THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS CAPITALISED RS.17,59,985/- IN I TS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND APPORTIONMENT OF OVERHEAD EXPENDITURE BETWEEN C ONSTRUCTION AND OTHER ACTIVITIES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS WITHOU T ANY BASIS AND WITHOUT SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. ACCORDI NGLY, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,13,15,586/- TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE AO, THE ASSE SSEE APPROACHED THE LD. CIT(A), WHO, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, D ELETED THE ADDITION. NOW, THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. ITA NO.586 OF 2013 M.P. WAREHOUSING AND LOGISTIC 3 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO WHEREAS LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE IMPUG NED ORDER. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUE OF OVERHE AD EXPENDITURE ON CONSTRUCTION TREATING IT AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE W AS DECIDED BY THE ITAT, INDORE VIDE ORDER DATED 3.5.2012 IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE A.YS. 2005-06 TO 2008-09 (ITA NOS.130 TO 133/IND/20 12), WHEREIN, CONSIDERING THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS DELETED. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORD ER DATED 3.5.2012 IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 3.3. IF THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT( A), CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ASSERTION MADE BY T HE LEARNED RESPECTIVE COUNSEL ARE KEPT IN JUXTAPOSITION AND ANALYSED, ADM ITTEDLY, THE CHART OF APPORTIONMENT OF OVERHEAD EXPENSES WAS DULY FURNISH ED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS FIRST APPELLATE STAGE. THERE IS A FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WORK OF NEW GODOWNS HAS BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY APPORTIONED BY WAY OF MAINTAINI NG A SEPARATE RECORD AND THE ASSESSEE HAS CAPITALISED THAT PORTION OF EXPEND ITURE WHICH HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW GODOWNS. THERE IS ANOTHER FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING MORE THAN 1000 GODOWNS FOR WHICH EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED ON REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE, CONSEQUENTLY, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE EXPENSES SO INCURRED CANNOT BE OF CAPITAL NATUR E BECAUSE NEITHER ANY NEW ASSET WAS CREATED NOR ANY BENEFIT OF ENDURING NATUR E WAS DERIVED BY THE ASSSSEE. 3.4 DURING HEARING THE LEARNED CIT DR PLACED REL IANCE ON THE DECISION FROM HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT V. HI -LINE PENS PRIVATE LIMITED ITA NO.586 OF 2013 M.P. WAREHOUSING AND LOGISTIC 4 (SUPRA) WHEREIN ON THE ISSUE OF BUSINESS EXPENDITUR E ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS AND RENOVATION OF RENTED PREMISES, THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED TOWARDS FALSE CEILING, FIXING TILES, REPLACING GLASSES, WOO DEN PARTITIONS, REPLACEMENT OF ELECTRICAL WIRING, EARTHING, REPLACEMENT OF GI PIPE S, ETC. SO AS TO MAKE THE PREMISES MORE CONDUCIVE TO BUSINESS ACTIVITY. IT WA S HELD THAT SUCH EXPENSES CLEARLY FALLS WITHIN THE EXPRESSION REPAIRS TO THE PREMISES AND THE SAME WAS HELD TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION U/S 30(A)(I) OF THE ACT. IF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IS APPLIED TO THE FACTS O F THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE FIND THAT THERE IS A CLEAR FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE THE APPORTIONMENT OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR CONSTRUC TION OF NEW GODOWN AND REPAIRING AND MAINTENANCE OF OLD ONE, THEREFORE, T HIS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT RATHER HELPS THE ASSESSEE. ANOTHER DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT DR IS FROM HONBLE APEX COURT IN SARAVANA SPINNING MIL LS (P) LIMITED (SUPRA) WHEREIN MACHINES WERE REPLACED IN THE TEXTILE MILL. IT WAS HELD THAT FOR TAKING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 31(I) OF THE ACT, THE EXPENDITURE MUST HAVE BEEN INCURRED TO PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN THE EXISTING ASSE T AND NO NEW ASSET SHOULD COME INTO EXISTENCE OR TO OBTAIN A NEW ADVANTAGE. W E ARE OF THE HUMBLE OPINION THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE INCURRED THE EXPEND ITURE FOR REPAIRING AND MAINTAINING THE OLD GODOWNS, THEREFORE, NEITHER NEW ASSET CAME INTO EXISTENCE NOR ANY BENEFIT OF ENDURING NATURE WAS OB TAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, CONSEQUENTLY, THIS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT ALSO MAY NOT HELP THE REVENUE. 3.5 SECTION 31(I) OF THE ACT LIMITS THE SCOPE OF A LLOWABILITY OF EXPENDITURE AS DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF REPAIRS MADE TO MACHINERY, PLANT OR FURNITURE BY RESTRICTING IT TO THE CONCEPT OF CURR ENT REPAIRS. ADMITTEDLY, ALL REPAIRS ARE NOT CURRENT REPAIRS TO DECIDE THE APPLI CABILITY OF SECTION 31(I), THE PRIMARY TEST IS NOT WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE IS REVE NUE OR CAPITAL IN NATURE. THE BASIC TEST TO FIND OUT AS TO WHAT WOULD CONSTIT UTE CURRENT REPAIR IS THAT THE EXPENDITURE MUST HAVE INCURRED TO PRESERVE AND MAI NTAIN AN ALREADY EXISTING ASSET AND THE OBJECT OF EXPENDITURE MUST N OT BE TO BRING A NEW ASSET INTO EXISTENCE OR TO OBTAIN A NEW ADVANTAGE. REPAI R IMPLIES THE EXISTENCE OF A PART OF THE MACHINE/PLANT OR FURNITURE WHICH HAS MAL-FUNCTIONS. THE ENTIRE ITA NO.586 OF 2013 M.P. WAREHOUSING AND LOGISTIC 5 MACHINE/PLANT OR FURNITURE, IF REPLACED, THE EXPEND ITURE, SO INCURRED DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE MEANING OF CURRENT REPAIRS. THE OB JECT OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE IS TO PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN EXISTING AS SET AND NOT TO BRING A NEW ASSET INTO EXISTENCE. THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HONBL E BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN NEW SHOROCK SPINNING & MFG. CO. LTD. VS. CIT; 30 IT R 338 (BOM), CIT V. SARAVANA SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED (RELIED UPO N BY THE LEARNED CIT DR), BALLIMAL NAVALKISHORE V. CIT; 224 ITR 141 (SC), CIT V. CHOUGHULE & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED (214 ITR 523) (BOM.) SUPPORTS OUR V IEW. THE FULL BENCH OF HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NA THMAL BANKATLAL PARIKH & COMPANY V. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 168 (AP) (FB) EVEN WE NT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE NECESSARY FACTOR IS TO BE DECIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PROPOSITIONS THAT EMERGES FROM THE DECIDED CASES IS SUMMARISED AS UND ER :- (I) THE AMOUNT SHOULD BE PAID/EXPANDED ON ACCOUNT O F CURRENT REPAIRS (II) CURRENT REPAIRS MEANS REPAIR UNDERTAKEN IN N ORMAL COURSE OF USER FOR THE PURPOSES OF PRESERVATION, MAINTENANCE OR PROPER UTILISATION OR FOR RESTORING TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDIT ION. (III) CURRENT REPAIRS DO NOT MEAN ONLY PETTY REPAIR S OR REPAIRS NECESSITATED BY WEAR AND TEAR DURING THE PARTICULAR YEAR. (IV) SUCH REPAIRS SHOULD NOT BRING INTO EXISTENCE N OR OBTAIN A NEW ASSET OR DIFFERENT ADVANTAGE (V) NEITHER THE QUANTUM OF EXPENDITURE NOR THE FACT THAT IN THE PROCESS OF REPAIR THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL REPLACEMENT OF THE PARTS OF THE MACHINE OR SHIP IS DECISIVE OF THE TRUE NATURE OF T HE EXPDNDITURE. (VI) THE ORIGINAL COST OF THE ASSET IS NOT AT ALL R ELEVANT FOR ASCERTAINMENT OF THE TRUE NATURE OF THE EXPENDITURE ON REPAIRS. (VII) THE REPLACEMENT COST OF THE ASSET MAY, HOWEVE R, AT TIMES BE USED AS INDICATOR OF THE TRUE CHARACTER OF EXPENDIT URE. IF THE EXPENDITURE ON REPAIR ADDED TO THE WRITTEN DOWN VAL UE OR DISPOSAL VALUE EXCEEDS THE REPLACEMENT COST OF THE ASSET, A PRESUMPTION IS POSSIBLE THAT IT IS NOT A REVENUE EXPENDITURE BUT E XPENDITURE OF CAPITAL NATURE. SUCH A PRESUMPTION, OF-COURSE, WOULD BE RE BUTTABLE. (VIII) THE EXPRESSION CURRENT PRECEDING REPAIRS APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN USED BY THE LEGISLATURE WITH A VIEW TO RESTRIC TING THE ALLOWANCE TO EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR PRESERVATION AND MAINTENAN CE THEREOF IN ITS CURRENT STATE IN CONTRADICTION TO THAT INCURRED ON ANY IMPROVEMENT OR AN ADDITION THERETO. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT TO A PROPOSITION THAT TOTAL REP LACEMENT OF DAMAGED MACHINERY/SHIP OR AN ASSET MAY NOT CONSTITUTE REPAI R. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED ITA NO.586 OF 2013 M.P. WAREHOUSING AND LOGISTIC 6 BY THE DECISION IN DCIT V. STN TEXTILES LIMITED; 25 7 ITR 171 (KER.) BUT SUBSTITUTION OF OLD/WORN OUT PARTS OF A MACHINE/BUI LDING/FACTORY ETC. IS AN EXPENDITURE OF DEDUCTIBLE NATURE, MEANING THEREBY F OR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, NO NEW ASSET SHOU LD COME INTO EXISTENCE AND THE EXPENDITURE MUST HAVE BEEN INCURRED ON THE EXIS TING ASSET. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE STAND OF THE CIT(A), ON THIS ISSUE, IT IS AFFIRMED. ON CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE, WE, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL, HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELE TED THE ADDITION. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 5. THE LAST GROUND I.E. GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUE IS THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,24,883/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS. SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE T HAT THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED RS.8,24,883/- IN P & L ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF DEBTS, WHICH WERE CLAIMED AS BAD DEBT WRITTEN OF F AND SUBMITTED THAT AS PER ACCOUNTING POLICY OF CORPORATION, BAD DEBTS OUTSTANDING FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS WERE WRITTEN OFF IN P & L ACCOUNT BY CREDITING THE SAME TO BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS RESERVE ACCOUNT. THE AO D ID NOT AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY SPECIFIC DETAIL TO SHOW THAT THESE DEBT S HAD BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR ITA NO.586 OF 2013 M.P. WAREHOUSING AND LOGISTIC 7 AS REQUIRED U/S 36(1)(I) AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED THE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS TO THE P & L ACCOUNT WH ICH WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION AS PER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 36(1)(VI I) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.8,24,883 /-. AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE LD. C IT(A), WHO, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, DELETED THE ADDITI ON. NOW, THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO WHEREAS LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE IMPUG NED ORDER. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUE OF BAD DE BTS WAS DECIDED BY THE ITAT, INDORE VIDE ORDER DATED 3.5.2012 IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE A.YS. 2005-06 TO 2008-09 (ITA NOS.130 TO 133/IND/20 12), WHEREIN, CONSIDERING THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS DELETED. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORD ER DATED 3.5.2012 IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 4. THE NEXT GROUND PERTAINS TO DELETING THE ADDIT ION ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS. THE STAND OF THE LEARNED CIT DR IS TH AT NECESSARY CONDITIONS OF ALLOWANCE FOR CLAIMING BAD DEBTS AS PROVIDED U/S 36 (1)(VII)/36(2) OF THE ACT WERE NOT SATISFIED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER H AND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 4.1 WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED RE SPECTIVE COUNSEL. THE ITA NO.586 OF 2013 M.P. WAREHOUSING AND LOGISTIC 8 LEARNED AO MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT WHICH IS SUMMARISED AS UNDER :- SL.NO. A.Y. RS. 1 2005-06 2641725 2 2006-07 1224593 3 2007-08 3875551 4 2008-09 162950 WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED AO MADE THE ADDITION ON AC COUNT OF BAD DEBTS ON THE PLEA THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE DETA ILS OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF WHEREAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THIS FIN DING OF THE AO IS INCORRECT AS THE COMPLETE DETAILS/WRITTEN OFF BAD DEBT WERE D ULY CHARGED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. THE CIT(A) GAVE CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT NECESSARY DETAILS ARE VERY MUCH EVIDEN CED FROM THE BALANCE SHEET AS WELL AS FROM BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DELETED THE ADDITION WHICH IS UNDER CHALLENGE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4.2 IF THE TOTALITY OF FACTS ARE ANALYSED, THERE I S UNCONTROVERTED FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE IN FACT WRITE OFF THE BAD DEBT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. WE FIND THAT AFTER 1.4.19 89, IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEBT IN FACT HAS BECO ME IRRECOVERABLE, IT IS ENOUGH IF THE BAD DEBT IS WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERA BLE IN ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE EFFECT OF AMENDMENT TO SECTION 36(1) (VII) READ WITH SECTION 36(2) WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.1989 IS ONLY THAT FOR CL AIMING DEDUCTION THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEBT HAS BECOME BAD IN PREVIOUS YEAR AND MERE WRITING OF THE DEBT OR PART THEREOF, AS IRRECOVERABLE, IS SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE OF THE SAME. OUR VIEW IS FOR TIFIED BY THE DECISION FROM HONBLE APEX COURT IN TRF LIMITED V. CIT; 323 ITR 3 97 (SC), CIT V. AUTO METERS LIMITED; 292 ITR 345 (DEL), CIT V. SMT. NILOPHER I. SINGH; 309 ITR 233 (DEL) AND KASHMIR TRADING COMPANY V. DCIT; 291 ITR 228 (RAJ.) . IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY I N THE STAND OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). IT IS AFFIRMED. ITA NO.586 OF 2013 M.P. WAREHOUSING AND LOGISTIC 9 ON CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE, WE, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL, HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELE TED THE ADDITION. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.1.2016 . SD/- ( D.T. GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (B.C. MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 20.1.2016 !VYS! COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR, INDORE