DISH TV INDIA LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5900/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7162 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SREEKARLD
• Assessee Lawyers: JAY BHANSALI LD
• Keywords: Non-deduction of tax; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 40(a)(ia); 194C; 194J; 13

Judgement Text

M/S DISH TV INDIA LIMITED ITA NOS.5900 & 5534/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING MODE) ./ I.T.A. NO.5900/MUM/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) M/S DISH TV INDIA LIMITED 135, CONTINENTAL BUILDING 135, DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD WORLI, MUMBAI 400 018 / VS. ACIT - 16(1) R.NO.439, 4 TH FLOOR AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI 400 020. PAN/GIR NO. AAACA - 5478 - M ( /APPELLANT ) : ( ! / RESPONDENT ) & ./ I.T.A. NO.5534/MUM/2018 ( $%& '% / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) ACIT - 16(1) R.NO.439, 4 TH FLOOR AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI 400 020 / VS. M/S DISH T V INDIA LIMITED 135, CONTINENTAL BUILDING 135, DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD WORLI, MUMBAI 400 018 PAN/GIR NO. AAACA - 5478 - M ( /APPELLANT ) : ( ! / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI JAY BHANSALI LD. AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SREEKAR-LD. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 18/08/2020 '& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07/ 09/2020 M/S DISH TV INDIA LIMITED ITA NOS.5900 & 5534/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 2 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. AFORESAID CROSS-APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2013-14 CONTEST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, MUMBAI [CIT(A)], APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-4/IT-104/ACIT16( 1)/2016-17 DATED 10/07/2018. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: - 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO] IN DISALLOWING EXPENDITURE IN THE NATU RE OF DISCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.56,48,42,447/- UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR NON-DEDU CTION OF TAX. THE REASONS GIVEN BY HIM FOR DOING SO ARE WRONG, CONTRARY TO THE FACT S OF THE CASE AND AGAINST THE PROVISION OF LAW. 2. THE A.O/CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE EXPENDIT URE OF RS.56,48,42,447/- WAS IN THE NATURE OF DISCOUNT GIVEN TO ITS DISTRIBUTORS WO RKING ON A PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL BASIS, FOR EARLY/ADVANCE PAYMENT AND NOT IN THE NAT URE OF COMMISSION FOR PROVISION OF ANY SERVICE AND THEREFORE, DID NOT WAR RANT TAX DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 194H OF THE ACT. 3. ASSUMING WITHOUT ADMITTING THE ARRANGEMENT WITH THE DISTRIBUTOR IS IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER/CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DISTRIBUTORS HAD THE LIBERTY TO SELL THE ELECTRONIC RECHARGE BALANCE ON PRICE, TERMS AND CONDITIONS DECIDED BY THE DISTRIBUTOR AND THERE FORE, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO COMPUTE THE AMOUNT IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSION LIA BLE TO WITHHOLDING TAX UNDER SECTION 194H OF THE ACT IN WHICH CASE THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 194H WOULD FAIL AND THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE APPLIED; 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER/ CIT(A) ERRED IN DRAWING A N ANALOGY WITH EXPENDITURE OF RS.10,78,92,519/- SUO-MOTU DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESS EE FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE SAID SUM RELATED TO C OMMISSION GIVEN TO DISTRIBUTORS FOR DISTRIBUTION OF EQUIPMENT, LIABLE TO WITHHOLDIN G TAX AND THEREFORE, THE NATURE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE EXPENDITURE IN THE NATURE OF DISCOUNTS OF RS.56,48,42,447/- WHICH DID NOT WARRAN T ANY TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE. 5. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO ON THE GROUNDS OF JUDICIAL CONSISTENCY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE EARLIER O RDER OF CIT(A) ON A SIMILAR ISSUE HAD BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. M/S DISH TV INDIA LIMITED ITA NOS.5900 & 5534/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 3 6. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE ORDER OF H ON'BLE ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF VIDEOCON D2H LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH DISH TV INDIA LTD.), WHEREIN ON SIMILAR ISSUES, THE HON'BLE ITAT HELD IN FAVOUR OF APPELLAN T. 7. THE ABOVE GROUNDS/SUB-GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUD ICE TO EACH OTHER. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER: - 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE HON'BLE ITAT IS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF LD. CI T(A) OF DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) RWS 194J IN RESPECT OF CUSTOMER SUPPORT CHARGES AND ALSO THAT OF CAS, MIDDLEWARE AND SMS CHARGES WITHOUT EVEN DECIDING THE SECTION UNDER WHICH THE TAX WAS SUPPOS ED TO BE DEDUCTED AS PER LAW AND MERELY RESTRICTING ITSELF OVER THE ISSU E OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE HON'BLE ITAT IS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF LD. CI T(A) OF DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) RWS 194J IN RESPECT OF CUSTOMER SUPPORT CHARGES AND ALSO THAT OF CAS, MIDDLEWARE AND SMS CHARGES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE RATIO OF JUDGEMENT LAID DOWN BY HO N'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT DATED 20.07.2015 IN THE CASE OF CIT-1, KOCHI VS PVS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL LTD. [2015] TAXMANN.COM 69 (KERALA)? 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE HON'BLE ITAT IS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF LD. CI T(A) OF DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) RWS 194J IN RESPECT OF CUSTOMER SUPPORT CHARGES AND ALSO THAT OF CAS, MIDDLEWARE AND SMS CHARGES BY MAKING A WRONG ASSUMPTION THAT THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PVS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL LTD. (SUPRA) HAS NOT CONSIDERED T HE DECISION OF HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S.K. TE KRIWAL (361 ITR 432) THEREBY RENDERING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PERVERS E. 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED . AS EVIDENT, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY CONFIRMATI ON OF CERTAIN DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) WHEREAS THE REVENUE IS A GGRIEVED BY DELETION OF CERTAIN SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE BY LD. CIT(A). 2. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASSESS EE, SHRI JAY BHANSALI, AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUES IN CROSS-APPEALS ARE FULLY COVERED BY THE EARLIER ORDERS OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AYS 2010-2011 TO 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16. THE CO PY OF THE ORDERS HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. THE LD. DR COULD NEITHER CONTROVERT THE M/S DISH TV INDIA LIMITED ITA NOS.5900 & 5534/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 4 SAME NOR DEMONSTRATED ANY DISTINGUISHING FACTS. IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS, OUR ADJUDICATION TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL WOULD BE AS GIVEN IN SUCCEEDING PARAGRAPHS. 3.1 FACTS ON RECORD WOULD REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT CORPORATE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED FOR YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION U/S 143(3) ON 15/03/2016 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS SADDL ED WITH DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6783.90 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF CUSTOMER SUPPORT CHARGES AND ANOTHER DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5648.42 LACS ON ACC OUNT OF COMMISSION CHARGES . BOTH THESE DISALLOWANCES ARE THE SUBJECT MATTER O F CROSS-APPEALS BEFORE US. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSES SEE, INTER-ALIA, OPERATED AS DIRECT-TO-HOME (DTH) OPERATOR I.E. DIST RIBUTION OF TELEVISION CHANNELS VIA SATELLITE. 3.2 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID CUSTOMER SUPPORT CHARGES OF RS.6741.90 LACS AND OTHER CHARGES (LIKE SMS CHARGES) FOR RS.42 LACS. THE CUSTOMER SUPPORT CHARGES WERE IN THE NATURE OF CALL-CENTER CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST BOTH THESE PAYMENTS, TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SO URCE (TDS) @2% U/S 194C. HOWEVER, THE SAID PAYMENTS, IN THE OPINIO N OF LD.AO, WOULD REQUIRE HIGHER TDS OF 10% U/S 194J AND THE FAILURE TO DO SO WOULD ATTRACT CONSEQUENTIAL DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA). THE ASSES SEE, INTER-ALIA, SUBMITTED THAT SHORT DEDUCTION, IF ANY, WOULD NOT L EAD TO ANY DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) AS HELD IN VARIOUS DECIS IONS OF THE TRIBUNAL. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE, DRAWING ATTENTION TO THE CON TRACTUAL TERMS, JUSTIFIED ITS STAND IN DEDUCTING TDS @ 2% U/S 194C AGAINST THE AFORESAID PAYMENTS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SERVICES AVAILED WO ULD NOT FALL UNDER THE HEAD FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL OR TECHNICAL SERVICES IN TERMS OF SEC.194J . M/S DISH TV INDIA LIMITED ITA NOS.5900 & 5534/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 5 HOWEVER, DISREGARDING THE SAME, LD. AO OPINED THAT THE SERVICES WERE TECHNICAL IN NATURE AND THE EXPENSES WOULD FALL UND ER THE CATEGORY OF PROFESSIONAL / TECHNICAL SERVICES WHICH WOULD REQUI RE HIGHER DEDUCTION OF 10% U/S 194J. SINCE SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE I N AYS 2010-11 TO 2012-13, LD. AO CHOSE TO MAKE SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE IN THIS YEAR AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA). 3.3 REGARDING COMMISSION PAYMENT, IT WAS OBSERVED T HAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEDUCT ANY TDS ON COMMISSION OF RS.5648.42 LACS STATED TO BE PAID TO VARIOUS DISTRIBUTORS DURING THE YEAR. THE A SSESSEE, IN ITS SUBMISSIONS DATED 15/03/2016, EXPLAINED THAT DISTRI BUTORS PAID LUMP SUM PAYMENT IN ADVANCE AS ADVANCE SUBSCRIPTION . TO INCENTIVIZE THE SAME, CASH DISCOUNT WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE A MOUNT WOULD ACTUALLY REPRESENT CASH DISCOUNT AND NOT COMMISSION ON SALES. THE DISTRIBUTORS DID NOT RENDER ANY SERVICE TO THE ASSE SSEE AND HENCE, THE SAME WOULD NOT REQUIRE ANY TDS U/S 194H. HOWEVER, L D. AO, INTER-ALIA, OPINED THAT THERE WAS PRINCIPAL-TO-AGENT RELATIONSH IP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE DISTRIBUTOR AND THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 194H WERE APPLICABLE TO THE SAID PAYMENTS. NOTICING THAT THE ASSESSEE DEBITED AGGREGATE COMMISSION OF RS.15586.74 LACS IN THE PRO FIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND SUO-MOTO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1078.92 LACS DUE TO NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX IN ITS COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THIS PAYMENT OF RS.5648.42 LACS WOULD ALSO REQUIRE FURTHER DISALLOW ANCE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMEN T. 4.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A), FOLLOWING TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AYS 2011-12 & 2012-13, ITA NOS.3061-62/MUM /2017 & 3691- 92/MUM/2017 ORDER DATED 10/10/2017 DELETED THE DISA LLOWANCE OF M/S DISH TV INDIA LIMITED ITA NOS.5900 & 5534/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 6 RS.6783.90 LACS REPRESENTING CUSTOMER SUPPORT CHARGES . AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4.2 HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5648 .42 LACS WAS CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) SINCE SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS CONFIRMED BY THE SAME AUTHORITY IN AY 2012-13 AND FURTHER, IN VIEW O F THE FACT THAT TRIBUNAL HAD RESTORED THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN AYS 2011-12 & 2012-13. AGGRIEVED, T HE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US WHEREIN LD. AR SEEK SIMILA R DIRECTIONS AS GIVEN IN AYS 2011-12 & 2012-13. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. SO FAR AS THE DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.6783.90 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF CUSTOMER SUPPORT CHARGES DUE TO SHORT DEDUCTION OF TDS, IS CONCERNED, IT IS QUITE EVIDENT FROM IMPUGNE D ORDER THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS MERELY FOLLOWED THE CITED ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AYS 2011-12 & 2012-13. A COPY OF THE S AME IS ON RECORD. WE CONCUR WITH THE SUBMISSION OF LD. AR THAT THIS I SSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN ASSESSEES FAVOR BY THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL FOR AYS 2011-12 & 2012-13 WHEREIN AT PARA-16 OF THE COMMON ORDER DA TED 10/10/2017, THE COORDINATE BENCH FOUND NO INFIRMITY OR ILLEGALI TY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)( IA) WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE SECTION TO TREAT THE ASSESSEE AS DEFAULTER WHERE TH ERE IS SHORTFALL IN DEDUCTION OF TDS. IN FACT, THIS DECISION HAS SUBSEQ UENTLY BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE FOR AY 2010-11 (ITA NOS. 3739 & 3383/MUM/2016 ORDER DATED 08/06/2018). THEREFORE, FACTS BEING PARI-MATERIA THE SAME, NO FA ULT COULD BE FOUND IN M/S DISH TV INDIA LIMITED ITA NOS.5900 & 5534/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 7 THE IMPUGNED ORDER, ON THIS ISSUE. RESULTANTLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. 6. COMING TO ASSESSEES APPEAL, IT IS COMMON POINT OF AGREEMENT THAT THE ISSUE WOULD STAND RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO FOR RE- ADJUDICATION AS PER DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR AY S 2011-12 & 2012-13 WHEREIN THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK WITH CERTAIN D IRECTIONS. SIMILAR DIRECTIONS WERE GIVEN IN ORDER FOR AY 2010-11, ITA NO. 3739/MUM/2016 ORDER DATED 08/06/2018 WHICH ARE AS UNDER: - 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D MATERIALS ON RECORD. AS COULD BE SEEN, IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 201112 AND 201213. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED PASSED AN ORDER IN ITA NO.3061 3062/MUM/2017, DATED 10.10.2017 RESTORING THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 8. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE DISTRIBUTOR AVAILABLE ON PAGES 13 8 TO 148 AS WELL AS THE SAMPLE SUBSCRIPTION APPLICATION FORM AVAILABLE ON P AGES 149 TO 150 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENT AND THE IS SUE INVOLVED WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT EXAMINATION OF THESE DOCUMENTS AS A W HOLE ALONG WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE DISTRIBUTOR IN RESPECT OF TALK TIME CARD IS ESSENTIAL TO DETERMINE THE TRUE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION WHETHER THE TRANSACT ION ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE DISTRIBUTOR RELATES TO DISCOUN T OR COMMISSION. THE TDS PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE UNDER SECTION 194H IN CAS E IT IS HELD THAT THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSE E AND THE DISTRIBUTOR IS THAT OF COMMISSION BUT IN CASE IF IT IS DECIDED THA T THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION IS NOT COMMISSION BUT DISCOUNT GIVEN ON SALES IT CANNO T BE REGARDED TO BE COMMISSION WHICH IS HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 194H OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. WE, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY TO BOTH THE PARTIES SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE IT TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE AO SHALL REDECIDE THIS ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDAN CE WITH LAW AFTER GOING THOUGH THE AGREEMENT WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO WITH THE DISTRIBUTOR AS WELL AS THE SAMPLE SUBSCRIPTION APPL ICATION FORM, WHETHER THE AMOUNT REPRESENTS THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE A SSESSEE TOWARDS COMMISSION OR WHETHER THE SAID AMOUNT REPRESENTS CA SH DISCOUNT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE DISTRIBUTOR FOR SALE OF TALK TI ME CARD. WE MAY MENTION THAT IN THIS REGARD THE AO WHILE DETERMINING THE TRUE NA TURE OF THE TRANSACTION WHETHER IT IS A COMMISSION OR DISCOUNT SHOULD NOT B E INFLUENCED BY THE NOMENCLATURE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID AGRE EMENT. WE, ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. M/S DISH TV INDIA LIMITED ITA NOS.5900 & 5534/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 8 13. FACTS BEING IDENTICAL, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCH, WE RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION KEEPING IN VIEW THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 12 AND 201213. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. SIMILAR DIRECTIONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN AYS 2014-15 & 2015-16 COMMON ORDER DATED 02/12/2019 (ITA NOS. 6168-69/MUM/2018). THEREFORE, IN TUNE WITH CONSISTENT STAND OF TRIBUNAL IN OTHER YEA RS, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF LD.AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICAT ION ON SIMILAR LINES. RESULTANTLY, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. FINALLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED W HEREAS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 07 TH SEPTEMBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- (C.N. PRASAD) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 07/09/2020 SR.PS, JAISY VARGHESE !' # $ # / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. ! / THE RESPONDENT 3. + ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. + / CIT CONCERNED 5. ,- ) $ , $ , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. -.%/ / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI.