LILAC MEDICARE P. LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5983/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7865 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR YADAV
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 5983/MUM/2014 A.Y. 2011 - 12 LILAC MEDICARE P. LTD. VS. DCIT 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, M UMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C SHARMA , AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM ITA NO. 5983/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011 - 12) LILAC MEDICARE P. LTD., 8 SUNGOLD 303 SHER - E PUNJAB, MAHAKALI CAVES ROAD, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI - 400 093. / VS. DCIT 8(2), AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K ROAD, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI - 400 020. ./ ./ PAN NO. AAACL3709M ( / APPELLANT) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MS. PARVATHY GANESH, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJESH KUMAR YADAV, D.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 06.12.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 .12.2017 / O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 17, MUMBAI, DATED 13.06.2014, WHICH IN ITSELF ARISES FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (F OR SHORT ACT), DATED 05.02.2014. THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAD RAISED BEFORE US THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - ITA NO. 5983/MUM/2014 A.Y. 2011 - 12 LILAC MEDICARE P. LTD. VS. DCIT 2 1. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) - 17 ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 7,69,333/ - ON PLANT AND MACHINERY BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND INSTALLED AT CUSTOMERS PREMISES FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) - 17 ERRED IN FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 CONCLUDING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS UNABLE T O ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE MACHINES WERE PART AND PARCEL OF ITS BLOCK OF ASSETS, INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT: I). THE MACHINES WERE FORMING PART OF THE ANNEXURES TO FIXED ASSETS ANNEXED WITH THE TAX AUDIT REPORT AND SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO TO THE CIT(APPEALS) . 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND SUBMIT A DETAILED STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE LAWS RELIED UPON AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN DIAGNOSTIC KITS AND INSTRUMENTATION USED FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES HAD E - FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 ON 30.09.2011, DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 2,02,92,121/ - . THE R ETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED AS SUCH UNDER SEC. 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THEREAFTER TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 143(2). 3. THE A.O DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THE MACHINES OF RS. 13,28,639/ - . THE A.O WHILE DELIBERATING ON THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS ITS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION, THEREIN OBSERVED THAT THE MACHINES USED FOR PATHOLOGICAL TESTS ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMING DEPRECIATION WERE INSTALLED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE PREMISES OF THE DOCTORS AND WERE BEING USED BY THEM FOR THEIR BUSINESS AND NOT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSE E . THE A.O CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PUT FORTH AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY ITS CLAIM OF DEPR ECIATION MAY NOT BE DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ITS REPLY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION, HOWEVER, THE A.O AFTER PERUSING THE SAME WAS NOT ITA NO. 5983/MUM/2014 A.Y. 2011 - 12 LILAC MEDICARE P. LTD. VS. DCIT 3 PERSUADED TO ACCEPT THE SAME. THE A.O AFTER DELIBERATING ON THE VARIOUS FACTS PERTAINING TO TH E ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION, VIZ. (I) THAT LETTING OUT OF MACHINERY WAS NOT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE; (II). THAT AS NO RENTAL WAS CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, ITS CASE COULD NOT BE COMPARED WITH A CASE OF OPERATING LEASE; AND (III) THAT THE DIAG NOSTIC MACHINES WERE BEING USED FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE THIRD PARTIES, THUS BEING OF THE VIEW THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SATISFY THE REQUISITE CONDITION CONTEMPLATED UNDER SEC. 32(1) OF THE ACT AS REGARDS USER OF THE MACHINERY FOR THE PURPOSE OF IT S BUSINESS , THEREFORE , DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 7,69,333 / - CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SUCH DIAGNOSTIC MACHINES. 4 . AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED THE ORDER OF THE A.O BEFORE THE CIT(A). TH E CIT(A) AFTER DELIBERATING ON THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM IN THE BACKDROP OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, OBSERVED, THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE BEFORE HIM WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN THE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE EARLIER YEARS , WHEREIN THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DISMISSED BY HIM. T HUS, THE CIT(A) BY RELYING ON THE ORDERS PASSED BY HIM IN THE CASES OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PRECEDING YEARS INVOLVING THE SAME ISSUE, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5 . THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) HAD CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THAT AT THE VERY OUTSET OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R) FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A), THE SIMILAR ISSUE WAS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PRECEDING YEARS . THE LD. A.R SUBMITTED THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS , VIZ. A.YS 2007 - 08 TO 2010 - 11, THOUGH THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE MACHINES WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) AND THE RESPECTIVE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DISMISSED , HOWEVER , ON FURTHER APPEAL THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER PASSED IN ITAS NO. 6179 TO 6182/MUM/2013, DATED 23.11.2016 (COPY ITA NO. 5983/MUM/2014 A.Y. 2011 - 12 LILAC MEDICARE P. LTD. VS. DCIT 4 PLACED ON RECORD) HAD ALLOWED THE APPEALS AND CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION ON THE DIAGNOSTIC MACHINES INST ALLED AT THE CUSTOMERS SITE. IT WAS THUS AVERRED BY THE LD A.R THAT AS THE FACTS AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE THE SAME AS INVOLVED IN THE SAI D EARLIER YEARS, THEREFORE, THE CASE WAS SQUARELY COVER ED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) DID NOT CONTROVERT THE AFORE SAID FACTUAL POSITION. 6 . WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, VIZ. A.Y. 2011 - 12 BY FOLLOWING HIS ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING YEARS. W E FIND THAT THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE SAID EARLIER YEARS, VIZ. A.YS 2007 - 08 TO 2010 - 11 ON FURTHER APPEAL HAD BEEN ALLOWED BY TH IS TRIBUNAL , VIDE ITS ORDER PASSED IN ITAS NO. 6179 TO 6182/MUM/2013, DATED 23.11.2016 , WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION ON THE DIAGNOSTIC MACHINES INSTALLED AT THE CUSTOMERS SITE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5.2 WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN LIGHT OF THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS STANDS GATHERED FROM A PERUSAL OF THE RELE VANT PAGES OF THE APB, THE CONDITIONAL DEPLOYMENT OF THE DIAGNOSTIC MACHINES OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE, AT THE CUSTOMERS SITE, ON THE BASIS OF AGREEMENTS CONTEMPLATING A STRICT STIPULATION THAT THE CUSTOMERS SHALL REMAIN UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO EXCLUSIVELY PU RCHASE THE REAGENTS USED IN RUNNING OF THE SAID DIAGNOSTIC MACHINES FROM THE ASSESSEE, IS A PURPOSIVE, CONSCIOUS AND INTENTIONAL MODUS OPERANDI ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BOOST THE SALES OF THE REAGENTS, WHICH CAN SAFELY BE CHARACTERIZED AS A STRATEGIC APP ROACH OF THE ASSESSEE PROMPTED BY BUSINESS PRUDENCE IN THE VERY INTEREST OF ITS BUSINESS. THE LD. A.R IN ORDER TO FORTIFY HER CONTENTION THAT THE DIAGNOSTIC MACHINES IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, WITH THE INTENT TO BOOST THE SALE O F REAGENTS WERE STRATEGICALLY DEPLOYED AT THE CUSTOMERS SITE ON ZERO RENTAL AND ZERO DEPOSIT BASIS, IN LIEU WHEREOF THE CUSTOMER REMAINED UNDER AN OBLIGATION NOT ONLY TO CARRY OUT EXCLUSIVE PURCHASE OF THE REAGENTS FROM THE ASSESSEE, BUT ALSO REMAINED COMM ITTED TO A ITA NO. 5983/MUM/2014 A.Y. 2011 - 12 LILAC MEDICARE P. LTD. VS. DCIT 5 MINIMUM GUARANTEED PURCHASES FROM THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PERIOD OF THE AGREEMENT, THEREIN DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 73 OF THE APB, WHICH IS AN ANNEXURE FORMING PART OF ONE OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH A CUSTOMER DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT IN THE BACKDROP OF SUCH A STRATEGICAL ARRANGEMENT CARRIED OUT IN THE COURSE OF AND IN VERY INTEREST OF ITS BUSINESS, THE TEST OF USER FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES OF SUCH DIAGNOSTIC MACHINES SO INSTALLED AT THE CUSTOMERS SITE, THUS STOOD SATISFIED BEYOND ANY SCOPE OF DOUBT. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US, ANDARE PERSUADED TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R THAT THE INSTALLATION OF THE DIAGNOSTIC MACHINES OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE CUSTOMERS SITE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE PURC HASE OF THE REAGENTS SHALL BE CARRIED OUT EXCLUSIVELY FROM THE ASSESSEE, CAN SAFELY AND INESCAPABLY BE HELD TO BE THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, AND THE OBSERVATIONS TO THE CONTRARY SO DRAWN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THE SAID ISSUEARE MISCONCEIVED AND HAD RIGHTLY BEEN DISPELLED BY THE LD. A.R BEFORE US. 5.3 WE ARE FURTHER UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT( A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PLACED ON RECORD ANY DETAILS AS REGARDS THE PLANT AND MACHINERY WHICH HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE CUSTOMERS ON REAGENTS/RENTAL BASIS, NOR HAD ADDUCED ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE DIAGNOSTIC MACHINES UNDER CONSIDERATION DID FORM PART AND PAR CEL OF ITS BLOCK OF ASSETS. WE ARE OF THECONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF MISCONCEIVED FACTS, HAD THUS ERRONEOUSLY HELD THAT DIAGNOSTICS MACHINES WHICH WERE INSTALLED AT THE CUSTOMERS SITE ON REAGENT RENTAL CONTRACT BASIS DID FORM PART OF THESTOCK IN TRADE OF THE TRADABLE DIAGNOSTIC MACHINES LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE.THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL THE LD. A.R DISPELLING THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A),THEREIN SUBMITTED THAT THE DIAGNOSTIC MACHINES OF RS. 52,85,721/ - WHICH WERE PUT TO SUCH USE AS ON 01.04.2006, WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PRECEDING YEARAND NECESSARY ADJUSTMENT AS REGARDS REDUCTION OF THE SAME FROM THE OP. STOCK AS ON 01.04.2006 STOOD DULY REFLECTED IN SCHEDULE 10 FORMING PART OF THE P& LOSS A/C FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, AND IN ORDER TO FORTIFY HIS CONTENTION DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 13 OF THE APB. THE LD. A.R FURTHER TAKING US TO PAGE 10 OF THE APB, WHICH IS A SCHEDULE OF THE FIXED ASSETS FORMING PART OF THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2007, MARKED AS SCHEDULE 5 , THEREIN SUBMITTED THAT DIAGNOSTIC MACHINES OF RS. 52,85,721/ - (SUPRA)FORMED PART OF THE ADDITIONS TO THE FIXED ASSETS REFLECTED AT RS.1,15,79,767/ - UNDER THE HEAD PLANT & MACHINERY IN THE SAID SCHEDULE. T HE LD. A.R FURTHER TO SUPPORT HIS AFORESAID FACTUAL CONTENTION AND REMOVE ANY SCOPE OF DOUBT, TOOK US TO ANNEXURE B (ADDITIONS TO THE FIXED ASSETS) WHICH THEREIN REVEALED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 52,85,721/ - (SUPRA) TO THE PLANT & MACHINERY AS ON 01.0 4.2006, DID FORM PART OF THE TOTAL ADDITIONS OF RS. 1,15,79,767/ - (SUPRA) REFLECTED IN SCHEDULE 5 (SUPRA). THUS TO BE BRIEF AND EXPLICIT, THE LD. A.R WELL DEMONSTRATED BEFORE US THAT THE COMPLETE ITA NO. 5983/MUM/2014 A.Y. 2011 - 12 LILAC MEDICARE P. LTD. VS. DCIT 6 DETAILS AS REGARDS THE DIAGNOSTIC MACHINES OF RS. 52,85,721 / - (SUPRA) FORMED PART OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEE, AND HAD BEEN INSTALLED AT THE CUSTOMERS SITES ON REAGENT SALE BASIS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WERE VERY MUCH AVAILABLE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT WAS THUS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTUAL POSITION, THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH DETAILS AND ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE DIAGNOSTIC MACHINES INSTALLED AT THE CUSTOMERS SITE WE RE PART OF ITS BLOCK OF ASSETS, WERE PROVED TO BE BLATANTLY CONTRARY TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, AND THE A.O HAD MOST WHIMSICALLY CONCLUDED THAT THE SAME WERE PART OF THE STOCK IN TRADE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THUS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THA T AS THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) WERE ABSOLUTELY PERVERSE AND CONTRARY TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THEREFORE THE SAME THUS COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED AS SUCH, AND WERE LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. THE LD. D.R WAS HOWEVER UNABLE TO DISLODGE THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WE FIND WERE WELL FOUNDED AND SUPPORTED BY THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE APB TO WHICH OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES AND ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AS HAD EMERGED FROM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS OF THE ADDITIONS TO THE PLANT AND MACHINERY WHICH WERE IN STALLED AT THE CUSTOMERS SITE ON REAGENT RENTAL CONTRACT BASIS, NOR ADDUCED ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE DIAGNOSTIC MACHINES INSTALLED AT THE CUSTOMERS SITE FORMED PART OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEE, BEING ABSOLUTELY CONTRARY AND IN COMPLETE DISREGARD OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THEREFORE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND ARE HEREIN SET ASIDE. THUS IN LIGHT OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS, WE HEREIN VACATE THE CONSEQUENTIAL FINDING OF THE CIT(A) WHICH HAD SO EMERGED ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID MISCONCEIV ED AND ILL FOUNDED OBSERVATIONSTHAT THE DIAGNOSTIC MACHINES INSTALLED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE CUSTOMERS SITE UNDER THE REAGENT RENTAL CONTRACTS WERE NOT FROM THE ASSESSES BLOCK OF ASSETS, BUT FORMED PART OF THE LATTERS STOCK IN TRADE. WE THUS BEING OF T HE VIEW THAT THE INSTALLATION OF THE DIAGNOSTIC MACHINES OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FORMING PART OF ITS BLOCK OF ASSETS AT THE CUSTOMERS SITE, BEING A PART OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, AND RATHER AS A MATTER OF FACT A MODUS OPERANDI ADOPTED BY THE ASS ESSEE TO BOOST ITS SALES OF REAGENTS, THEREFORE THE LATTER BEING FOUND TO HAVE DULY SATISFIED THE REQUISITE CONDITIONS CONTEMPLATED U/S 32(1) OF THE ACT, IS THUS ENTITLED TO DEPRECATION ON THE SAID DIAGNOSTIC MACHINES. WE THUS IN LIGHT OF OUR AFORESAID O BSERVATIONS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AS THE FACTS AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION REMAIN S THE SAME, THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE AFORESAID ITA NO. 5983/MUM/2014 A.Y. 2011 - 12 LILAC MEDICARE P. LTD. VS. DCIT 7 ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE EARLIER YEARS . WE THUS FOLLOW ING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A) UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION BY THE A.O . THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 7 . THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 /12/2017 SD/ - SD/ - (R.C SHARMA ) ( RAVISH SOOD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; 27 .12 .2017 PS. ROHIT KUMAR / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI ITA NO. 5983/MUM/2014 A.Y. 2011 - 12 LILAC MEDICARE P. LTD. VS. DCIT 8