ACIT, Hisar V. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

ITA 608/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74257 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 27-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY VOHRA SHRI ROHIT JAIN; UPVAN GUPTA S
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH VERMA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Transfer pricing; Business expenditure; Opportunity of being heard; Source of fund; Question of law; Capital receipt; Revised return; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 234B; 115JB; 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH D DD D : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI I.C. SUDHIR I.C. SUDHIR I.C. SUDHIR I.C. SUDHIR, ,, , JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NOS SS S. .. .368/DEL/2009 & 168/DEL/2009 368/DEL/2009 & 168/DEL/2009 368/DEL/2009 & 168/DEL/2009 368/DEL/2009 & 168/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEARS SS S : : : : 2002 2002 2002 2002- -- -03 & 2005 03 & 2005 03 & 2005 03 & 2005- -- -06 0606 06 M/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER M/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER M/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER M/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED, LIMITED, LIMITED, LIMITED, DELHI ROAD, HISSAR, DELHI ROAD, HISSAR, DELHI ROAD, HISSAR, DELHI ROAD, HISSAR, HARYANA. HARYANA. HARYANA. HARYANA. PAN : AAACJ7097D. PAN : AAACJ7097D. PAN : AAACJ7097D. PAN : AAACJ7097D. VS. VS. VS. VS. ADDITIONAL/DEPUTY ADDITIONAL/DEPUTY ADDITIONAL/DEPUTY ADDITIONAL/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HISSAR RANGE, HISSAR RANGE, HISSAR RANGE, HISSAR RANGE, HISSAR, HISSAR, HISSAR, HISSAR, HARYANA. HARYANA. HARYANA. HARYANA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.608/DEL/2009 & 221/DEL/2009 ITA NOS.608/DEL/2009 & 221/DEL/2009 ITA NOS.608/DEL/2009 & 221/DEL/2009 ITA NOS.608/DEL/2009 & 221/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002- -- -03 & 2005 03 & 2005 03 & 2005 03 & 2005- -- -06 0606 06 ASSISTA ASSISTA ASSISTA ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF NT COMMISSIONER OF NT COMMISSIONER OF NT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, HISAR. HISAR. HISAR. HISAR. VS. VS. VS. VS. M/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED, M/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED, M/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED, M/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED, DELHI ROAD, HISSAR, DELHI ROAD, HISSAR, DELHI ROAD, HISSAR, DELHI ROAD, HISSAR, HARYANA. HARYANA. HARYANA. HARYANA. PAN : AAACJ7097D. PAN : AAACJ7097D. PAN : AAACJ7097D. PAN : AAACJ7097D. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AJAY VOHRA, SHRI ROHIT JAIN AND SHRI UPVAN GUPTA, ADVOCATES. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI YOGESH VERMA, CIT-DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER BENCH PER BENCH PER BENCH PER BENCH : : : : ITA NO.368/DEL/2009 (ASSESSEES APPEAL : AY 2002 ITA NO.368/DEL/2009 (ASSESSEES APPEAL : AY 2002 ITA NO.368/DEL/2009 (ASSESSEES APPEAL : AY 2002 ITA NO.368/DEL/2009 (ASSESSEES APPEAL : AY 2002- -- -03): 03): 03): 03):- -- - THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), ROHTAK DATED 19 TH NOVEMBER, 2008 FOR THE AY 2002-03. 2. GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL READS AS UN DER:- THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ROH TAK HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN NOT ADJUDICATING ON THE CLAIM FO R ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 2 EXEMPTION OF SALES TAX, ENTRY TAX AND ELECTRICITY D UTY SUBSIDY AMOUNTING TO RS.3,59,71,541/- IN THE ABSENC E OF PREVIOUS SUCH CLAIM IN THE ORIGINAL OR A REVISED RE TURN WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SUBJECT CLAI M IS LEGAL IN NATURE AND HAS UNIVERSAL APPLICATION IN EARLIER AS WELL AS IN THE SUCCEEDING YEARS. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY CLAIM WITH REGARD TO EXEM PTION OF SALES TAX, ENTRY TAX AND ELECTRICITY DUTY SUBSIDY CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. BEFORE THE LE ARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE RAISED FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUND:- THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,59,71,541 ACCRUING TO THE APPLICANT ON ACCOUNT OF EXEMPTION FROM SALES TAX, E NTRY TAX AND ELECTRICITY DUTY WAS CAPITAL RECEIPT NOT EX IGIBLE TO TAX. 4. LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER ADMISSION, DISCUSSED THE A BOVE ADDITIONAL GROUND. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD READS AS UNDER:- RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HO N'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF JUTE CORPORAT ION OF INDIA LTD. VS. CIT 187 ITR 688 WHEREIN THE HONBLE COURT HAS HELD THAT THE POWERS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUT HORITY ARE CO-TERMINUS WITH THAT OF THE AO AND THERE APPEARS T O BE NO REASON AS TO WHY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CANT MODI FY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON ADDITIONAL GROUND EVEN IF NOT R AISED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2.1 THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL HAS BEEN ADMITT ED AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. AS PER THE APPELLANT, IT IS ENTITLED F OR RELIEF ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSIDY GIVEN BY THE MADHYA PRADESH GOVT . THE SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND IT HAS BEE N SEEN THAT (I) THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS NOT EMERGING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 3 (II) THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA VS. CIT 284 ITR 323, HELD THAT AN AS SESSEE CAN CLAIM SUCH ITEMS IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME ONLY A ND CAN NOT CLAIM THE SAME DURING ASSESSMENT OR APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER HE CAN CLAIM IN ITS REVISED RE TURN; THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT CAN NOT BE ALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEA L IS DISMISSED. 5. THE ASSESSEE, AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNE D CIT(A), IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS STATED B Y THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THIS GR OUND ON MERITS BUT DISMISSED AT THE THRESHOLD ON THE GROUND THAT NO SU CH CLAIM WAS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF FILING OF TH E REVISED RETURN. THE LEARNED COUNSEL STATED THAT IDENTICAL SITUATION WAS THERE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2004-05. IN THAT YEAR ALSO, THE AS SESSEE HAD RAISED THE ADDITIONAL GROUND BEFORE THE CIT(A) CLAIMING TH E EXEMPTION FOR SALES TAX, ENTRY TAX AND POWER SUBSIDY. THE CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED SUCH GROUND FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. 284 ITR 323. HOWEVER, WHEN T HE MATTER REACHED TO THE ITAT, THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECIS IONS OF HONBLE HIGH COURT AND THE ITAT WHICH ARE NOTED BY THE ITAT IN P ARAGRAPH 17 OF THE ORDER AND, THEREAFTER, THE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2013 IN ITA NOS.3319 & 3254/DEL/2008 ADJUDICATED THE ASSESS EES GROUND ON MERITS. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT INSTEAD OF S ETTING ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATING T HIS GROUND ON MERITS, ITAT SHOULD ADJUDICATE THE SAME IN THIS YEAR ALSO. 7. COMING TO THE MERITS OF ITS CLAIM WITH REGARD TO EXEMPTION OF THE SUBSIDIES, HE FAIRLY STATED THAT THE DECISION OF IT AT IN AY 2004-05 (SUPRA) ON MERITS IS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HE, HOW EVER, STATED THAT THE ABOVE DECISION OF ITAT SUFFERS FROM GRAVE ERROR AND , THEREFORE, NEED ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 4 NOT BE FOLLOWED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. H E ARGUED AT LENGTH IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE DECISION OF I TAT IN THIS REGARD FOR AY 2004-05 IS NOT A BINDING PRECEDENT. HIS ARGUMEN TS CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER:- (I) THAT THE ITAT MISAPPLIED THE DECISION OF HONBLE AP EX COURT IN THE CASE OF SAHNEY STEEL AND PRESS WORKS L TD. AND OTHERS VS. CIT [1997] 228 ITR 253 AND CIT VS. PON NI SUGAR AND CHEMICALS LTD. 306 ITR 392 (SC). (II) THAT THE ITAT WRONGLY DISTINGUISHED THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SI YA RAM GARG 237 CTR 321 (P&H). (III) THE ITAT FAILED TO FOLLOW THE SERIES OF DECISIONS O F OTHER HIGH COURTS. HE SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- (A) CIT VS. RASOI LTD. [2011] 335 ITR 438 (CAL). (B) SHREE BALAJI ALLOYS VS. CIT AND ANOTHER [2011 ] 333 ITR 335 (J&K). (IV) THAT THE ITAT FAILED TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. RELIANCE INDU STRIES LTD. [2004] 88 ITD 273 (MUM.)(SB). IT IS SUBMITT ED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT IS BINDING ON A DIVISION BENCH. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ITAT MISUNDERSTOOD AND MISAPPLIED THE DECISION OF H ONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE INDUSTRI ES LTD. VIDE CIVIL APPEAL NO.7769 OF 2011. HE SUBMITTED TH AT BY THE ABOVE DECISION, HONBLE APEX COURT SIMPLY DIREC TED THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT TO ADMIT THE QUESTION OF LAW AND ADJUDICATE ON MERITS WHETHER THE SALES TAX INCE NTIVE IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT OR NOT. THEREFORE, HONBLE APEX COURT ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 5 NOWHERE DISTURBED THE FINDING OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. MERELY BEC AUSE HONBLE APEX COURT DIRECTED THE HIGH COURT TO ADMIT THE QUESTION OF LAW ON THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SALES TAX INCENTIVE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT NOW THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE INDUS TRIES LTD. IS NOT A GOOD LAW AND, THEREFORE, NOT BINDING ON TH E DIVISION BENCH. (V) THAT THE ITAT FAILED TO FOLLOW THE NUMBER OF DE CISIONS OF DIVISION BENCH OF ITAT WHEREIN A VIEW HAS BEEN TAKE N THAT THE SUBSIDY BY WAY OF SALES TAX INCENTIVE IS A CAPI TAL RECEIPT. IN THIS REGARD, HE SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- (A) MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. VS. ACIT ORDER DATED 19 TH AUGUST, 2011 IN ITA NO.1927/DEL/2010 & ANOTHER. (B) BHUSHAN STEELS & STRIPS LTD. VS. DCIT [2004] 91 TTJ (DEL) 108. (VI) IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT IF A DIVISION BENCH O F ITAT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE OTHER DIVISION BENCH OF ITAT, IT SHO ULD NOT TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT SHOULD REFER THE MATTER TO THE LARGER BENCH OF ITAT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED CO UNSEL THAT THE ITAT FELL IN ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE SAL ES TAX SUBSIDY IS A REVENUE RECEIPT. HE SUBMITTED THAT BY NOW IT IS A SETTLED LAW BY THE CATENA OF DECISIONS OF ITAT , HONBLE HIGH COURTS INCLUDING HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT AS WELL AS HONBLE APEX COURT THAT THE SUBSIDY GIVEN F OR THE SETTING UP OF AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OR FOR THE EXPANSION ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 6 OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT. THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN THE SALES TAX AND OTHER SUBSIDIE S ON ACCOUNT OF SET UP OF NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IN THE BACKWARD AREA. THEREFORE, THE SALES TAX AND OTHER SUBSIDIES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE OF THE NATU RE OF CAPITAL RECEIPT AND NOT REVENUE RECEIPT. HE, THERE FORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF ITAT IN ASSESSEES O WN CASE FOR AY 2004-05 IS PER INCURIAM AND SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED AND IT SHOULD BE HELD THAT THE RECEIPT BY WAY OF SA LES TAX AND OTHER SUBSIDIES IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT. 8. LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, STATED THAT THE I SSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SALES TAX AND OTHER SUBSIDIES IS COVERED IN FAVO UR OF THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING REVIE W OF THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE EARLIER YEAR BY ANOTHER DIVISION BENCH OF ITAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE BY LAW. I F THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF ITAT FOR AY 2004-05, I T CAN EITHER FILE THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ABOVE ORDER OR FILE APPEAL BEFORE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. I N SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. VS. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 271 (DELHI) AND STATED THAT HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT IT IS NOT ONLY A MATTER OF JUDICIAL PROPRIETY BUT ALSO A MATTER OF J UDICIAL DISCIPLINE THAT ONE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT TAKE A CONTRAR Y VIEW WITH ANOTHER BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL BUT SHOULD REFER THE MATTER T O A LARGER BENCH FOR GETTING THE CONTROVERSY RESOLVED. HE, THEREFORE, S UBMITTED THAT THE SUBSEQUENT DIVISION BENCH HAS NO AUTHORITY TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW THAN WHAT IS TAKEN BY THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE IN ANOTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR. HE ALSO STATED THAT SINCE IN THE EARLIER YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF ITAT I N APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THEREFORE, WHEN THE MATTER IS SUB- ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 7 JUDICE BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, IT WOULD BE IMPROPE R TO REFER THE MATTER EVEN TO A LARGER BENCH. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF ITAT AND POINTED OUT THAT THE ITAT HAS CONSIDERED THE EN TIRE ISSUE AT LENGTH. HE REFERRED TO PARAGRAPH 48 TO 60 OF THE DECISION O F ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2004-05 AND POINTED OUT THAT EACH A ND EVERY ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND DE ALT WITH BY THE BENCH. THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE DISAGREES WITH THE ABOVE VIEW WOULD NOT BE A GROUND FOR REFERRING THE MATTER TO A LARGER BENCH. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF ITAT FOR AY 2004-05 SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. 9. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN THE REJOIND ER, HAS STATED THAT THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED D R WAS APPLICABLE TO THE ITAT IN AY 2004-05 AND THE ITAT WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN A CONTRARY VIEW TO THE DECISION OF ANOTHER BENCH OF ITAT. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF HON' BLE DELHI HIGH COURT RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED DR, THE DECISION OF ITAT FOR AY 2004-05 IS NOT A GOOD LAW. 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF B OTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. AT THE OUTSET, WE MAY MENTION THAT IN THE CASE OF DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. (SUP RA), HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- IT IS NOT ONLY A MATTER OF JUDICIAL PROPRIETY BUT ALSO A MATTER OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE THAT WHEN ONE BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL TAKES A VIEW, ANOTHER BENCH ON DISAGREEMEN T DOES NOT PASS A CONTRARY ORDER BUT REFERS THE MATTE R TO A LARGER BENCH FOR GETTING THE MATTER RESOLVED. 11. FORTUNATELY, ON THIS MATTER OF JUDICIAL PROPRIE TY, BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT IT IS A MATTER OF JUDICIAL PROPRIETY/JU DICIAL DISCIPLINE THAT ONE DIVISION BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW TO ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 8 THE VIEW TAKEN BY ANOTHER DIVISION BENCH. IF AT AL L ONE DIVISION BENCH IS NOT ABLE TO FOLLOW THE VIEW OF ANOTHER DIVISION BENCH, THEN THE ONLY OPTION LEFT IS TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE LARGER BE NCH. HOWEVER, THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS THAT AS PER THE ASSE SSEES COUNSELS CONTENTION, THE ITAT, WHILE PASSING THE ORDER FOR A Y 2004-05, HAS VIOLATED THE ABOVE SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL PR OPRIETY. BUT, THE REVENUE IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ABOVE PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL PROPRIETY SHOULD BE STRICTLY OBSERVED BY US WHILE PASSING THE ORDER FOR AY 2002- 03. WE ALSO RESPECTFULLY AGREE WITH BOTH THE PARTI ES THAT IT IS A SETTLED JUDICIAL PROPRIETY THAT ONE DIVISION BENCH SHOULD N OT TAKE A VIEW CONTRARY TO THE VIEW TAKEN BY ANOTHER DIVISION BENC H. NOW, WHETHER THE ITAT VIOLATED THE ABOVE SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF JU DICIAL PROPRIETY OR NOT IS NOT FOR US TO ADJUDICATE. IT HAS BEEN POINTED O UT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE APPEAL BEFO RE THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AGAINST THE ORDER OF ITAT FOR AY 2004-05 AND THE MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE THEM. THEREFORE, WHETH ER THERE IS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE OR NO T IN AY 2004-05, IS SUB JUDICE BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT. NOW, SO FAR AS THIS YE AR IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THERE IS A DECISION OF DIVI SION BENCH OF ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2004-05. WHETHER THE SU BSIDY IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT OR REVENUE RECEIPT WOULD DEPEND ON THE INCE NTIVE SCHEME OF THE CONCERNED GOVERNMENT. IT WOULD BE EVIDENT FROM THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SA HNEY STEEL AND PRESS WORKS LTD. AND OTHERS VS. CIT [1997] 228 IT R 253 :- IF PAYMENTS IN THE NATURE OF SUBSIDY FROM PUBLIC F UNDS ARE MADE TO THE ASSESSEE TO ASSIST HIM IN CARRYING ON H IS TRADE OR BUSINESS, THEY ARE TRADE RECEIPTS. THE CHARACTE R OF THE SUBSIDY IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENT-WHETHER REVEN UE OR CAPITAL-WILL HAVE TO BE DETERMINED, HAVING REGARD T O THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE SUBSIDY IS GIVEN. THE SOURCE OF THE FUND IS QUITE IMMATERIAL. HOWEVER, IF THE PURPOSE IS TO HELP THE ASSESSEE TO SET UP ITS BUSINESS OR COMPLETE A P ROJECT THE MONIES MUST BE TREATED AS HAVING BEEN RECEIVED FOR CAPITAL PURPOSES. BUT IF MONIES ARE GIVEN TO THE A SSESSEE FOR ASSISTING HIM IN CARRYING OUT THE BUSINESS OPER ATIONS ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 9 AND THE MONEY IS GIVEN ONLY AFTER AND CONDITIONAL U PON COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION, SUCH SUBSIDIES MUST BE TREATED AS ASSISTANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE TRADE. 12. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. [20 04] 88 ITD 273 (MUM.)(SB) :- THUS, THE INTERPRETATION OF THE TRIBUNAL, OF THE RA TIO LAID DOWN IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN SAHNEY STEEL & PRESS WORKS LTD.S CASE ( SUPRA ) COULD NOT BE STATED TO BE ERRONEOUS. THE TRIBUNAL DID RECOGNISE, AS THE SUPREME COURT ITSELF RECOGNISED, THAT THE OBJECT WI TH WHICH THE SUBSIDY IS GIVEN IS DECISIVE. IT DID RECOGNISE, FOLLOWING THE DISTINCTION POINTED OUT BY THE SUPREME COURT TH AT IF THE SUBSIDY IS GIVEN FOR SETTING UP OR EXPANSION OF THE INDUSTRY IN A BACKWARD AREA, IT WILL BE CAPITAL RECEIPT, IRR ESPECTIVE OF THE MODALITY OR THE SOURCE OF FUNDS THROUGH OR FROM WHICH IT IS GIVEN AND THAT IF MONIES ARE GIVEN FOR ASSIST ING THE ASSESSEE IN CARRYING OUT THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS ON LY AFTER, AND CONDITIONAL UPON, THE COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTIO N, IT WILL BE REVENUE RECEIPT. IT WAS ONLY FOR THE PURPOS E OF BRINGING OUT THAT DISTINCTION, THAT THE TRIBUNAL HA D ANALYSED THE FEATURES OF THE MAHARASHTRA SCHEME OF 1979 AND HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SUBSIDY GIV EN UNDER THE SCHEME HAD A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE FIXED CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND THAT IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE S UBSIDY WAS GIVEN WITH THE OBJECT OF ASSISTING OR LENDING A HELPING HAND TO THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BUSINESS OPERATIONS. THE TRIBUNAL WAS, THUS, AWARE OF THE DISTINCTION BE TWEEN THE SUBSIDY GIVEN WITH THE OBJECT OF SETTING UP THE INDUSTRY AND THE SUBSIDY GIVEN AFTER THE INDUSTRY COMMENCES PRODUCTION AND CONDITIONAL UPON THE COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION. FACTUALLY, THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE WHICH FELL UNDER THE MAHARASHTRA SC HEME WAS A CASE WHERE THE SUBSIDY WAS GIVEN FOR THE PURP OSE OF FACILITATING THE ASSESSEE TO SET UP AN INDUSTRY IN PATALGANGA, RAIGAD DISTRICT, WHICH WAS A NOTIFIED A REA. THE ACTUAL DISBURSEMENT TOOK PLACE AFTER THE ASSESSEE COMMENCED PRODUCTION, BUT, ACCORDING TO THE TRIBUNA L, IT WAS ONLY A MODE OF DISBURSEMENT AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OBJECT FOR WHICH THE SUBSIDY WAS GIVEN. TH US, IT ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 10 WAS FOUND THAT THE TRIBUNAL DID NOTICE THE CRUCIAL OBSERVATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN SAHNEY STEEL & PRESS WORKS LTD.S CASE ( SUPRA ) WHICH GAVE PRIMACY TO THE OBJECT OF THE SUBSIDY OVER THE FACT THAT IT WAS GIVEN AFTE R THE COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION. THE TRIBUNALS OBSERVATIONS MADE ON THE BASIS OF TH E OBSERVATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN SAHNEY STEEL & PRESS WORKS LTD.S CASE ( SUPRA ) ALSO SHOWED THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS ALIVE TO THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE CHARACTER OF THE SUBSIDY GIVEN WITH THE OBJECT OF PROMOTING INDUSTRI AL GROWTH IN A PARTICULAR AREA AND THE SUBSIDY GIVEN CONDITIONAL UPON THE COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND AFTER ACTUAL COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION. IT IS NOT CORRECT TO UNDERSTAND THE JUDGMENT AS LAYING DOWN THE BROAD PROPOSITION THAT WHEREVER THE SUBSIDY IS GIVEN AFTE R THE COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND CONDITIONAL UPON THE SAME, IT SHOULD BE TREATED AS A REVENUE RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE OBJECT F OR WHICH THE SUBSIDY IS GRANTED. THE OBJECT FOR WHICH THE SU BSIDY IS GRANTED TAKES PRIMACY OVER THE FACT THAT IT IS GIVE N AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND CONDITIONAL UPON THE SAME. THAT THE SUPREME COURT ITSELF RECOGNISED THAT POSITION HAD BEEN AMPLY MADE CLEAR IN ITS OBSERVATI ONS. 13. THAT THE INCENTIVE SCHEME OF EVERY STATE GOVERN MENT IS DIFFERENT. THEREFORE, FOR ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSI ON WHETHER THE SUBSIDY RECEIVED BY A PARTICULAR ASSESSEE IS CAPITAL OR REV ENUE WOULD DEPEND ON THE CONSIDERATION OF THE INCENTIVE SCHEME OF THA T PARTICULAR STATE. IN THIS CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ITAT HAS CONSIDERED THE FACTUAL ASPECT IN PARAGRAPH 49 OF THE ORDER IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SAHNEY STEEL AND PRESS WORKS L TD. (SUPRA) AND THEN ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE INCENTIVE R ECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE INCENTIVE SCHEME OF THE GOVERNM ENT OF MADHYA PRADESH IS A REVENUE RECEIPT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED TO VARIOUS DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH CO URTS AS WELL AS ITAT BUT IT HAS NOWHERE BEEN SHOWN TO US WHETHER ANY OTH ER HIGH COURT OR ITAT CONSIDERED THE INCENTIVE SCHEME OF THE MADHYA PRADESH GOVERNMENT. IN FACT, IF WE GO THROUGH THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 11 COURT IN THE CASE OF SAHNEY STEEL AND PRESS WORKS L TD. (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT THE ABOVE APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE APEX COURT WAS AGAINST THE DECISION OF HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT. HOW EVER, IN THE SAID DECISION AT PAGE 267, THEIR LORDSHIPS DISCUSSED THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DU SAD INDUSTRIES [1986] 162 ITR 784. IN THE ABOVE DECISION, HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT HAS HELD THE SALES TAX SUBSIDY TO BE A R EVENUE RECEIPT AFTER CONSIDERING THE INCENTIVE SCHEME OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVERNMENT. HOWEVER, HONBLE APEX COURT HELD THAT THE VIEW TAKE N BY HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DUSAD INDU STRIES (SUPRA) WAS ERRONEOUS. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THEIR LORDS HIPS REPORTED AT PAGE 267 OF 228 ITR READS AS UNDER:- THE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V . DUSAD INDUSTRIES 162 ITR 734, DEALT WITH A CASE WHE RE GOVERNMENT HAD FRAMED A SCHEME FOR GRANTING SALES T AX SUBSIDIES TO INDUSTRIES SET UP IN BACKWARD AREAS. T HE HIGH COURT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE OBJECT OF THE SCHEME WAS NOT TO SUPPLEMENT THE PROFITS MADE BY INDUSTRIES. I N THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE SU BSIDIES GIVEN UNDER THE SAID SCHEME BY THE GOVERNMENT TO NE WLY SET UP INDUSTRIES WERE CAPITAL RECEIPTS IN THE HAND S OF THE INDUSTRIES AND COULD NOT BE TAXED AS REVENUE RECEIP TS. IN THAT CASE, 75 PER CENT OF THE SALES TAX PAID IN A Y EAR FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS FROM THE DAY OF STARTING OF PR ODUCTION WAS TO BE GIVEN BACK BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE INDUS TRY CONCERNED. THE HIGH COURT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT OBVI OUSLY THE SUBSIDY WAS GIVEN BY WAY OF AN INCENTIVE FOR CA PITAL INVESTMENT AND NOT BY WAY OF ADDITION TO THE PROFIT S OF THE ASSESSEE AS WAS CLEAR FROM THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE. THE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT, HOWEVER, F AILED TO NOTICE THE SIGNIFICANT FACT THAT UNDER THE SCHEM E FRAMED BY THE GOVERNMENT, NO SUBSIDY WAS GIVEN UNTIL THE T IME PRODUCTION WAS ACTUALLY COMMENCED. MERE SETTING UP OF THE INDUSTRY DID NOT QUALIFY AN INDUSTRIALIST FOR G ETTING ANY SUBSIDY. THE SUBSIDY WAS GIVEN AS HELP NOT FOR THE SETTING UP OF THE INDUSTRY WHICH WAS ALREADY THERE BUT AS A N ASSISTANCE AFTER THE INDUSTRY COMMENCED PRODUCTION. THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IS ERRONEOUS. ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 12 14. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SAHNEY STEEL AND PRESS WORKS LTD. (SUPRA) IMPLIE DLY HELD THAT AS PER THE SCHEME OF THE INCENTIVE OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVER NMENT, SALES TAX SUBSIDY IS TAXABLE. THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2004-05 IS SIMILAR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, W E ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE ORDER OF ITAT FOR AY 2004-05 SUFFERS FROM GRAVE ERROR AND SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED. WE FIND THAT THE ITAT DISCUSSED THE RELEVANT CASE LAW, APPL IED THE SAME TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, CONSIDERED THE SCHEME OF THE MAD HYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AND THEREAFTER ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SALES TAX AND OTHER SUBSIDIES PROVIDED BY MADHYA PRADESH GOVERNME NT WERE REVENUE RECEIPT. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT JUDICIAL PROPRIETY AND JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE DEMAND THAT WE, A S A SUBSEQUENT COORDINATE BENCH DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE SAME AS SESSEE, SHOULD NOT TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFU LLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2004 -05 HOLD THAT THE AMOUNT OF SALES TAX AND OTHER SUBSIDIES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE REVENUE IN NATURE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 15. GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL READS AS U NDER:- THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ROH TAK HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,00,000/- OUT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON AIRCRA FT FOR ALLEGED NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES. 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN TH E AY 2004-05 (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE ITAT HELD AS UNDER:- ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 13 44. THE LD AR HAD RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN I.T.A. NO.3257/D EL/2005 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HA D HELD THAT EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO TRIPS MADE FOR N ON BUSINESS PURPOSES COULD ONLY BE DISALLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT. FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 286 ONWARDS WE F IND THAT THE MATTER HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AT PAGE 304. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD THAT THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE SHUT OUT IN ITS ENTIRETY AND IT OBSERVED THAT IN RELATION TO TRIPS TO DELHI, TIRUPA TI, GHANA NO PURPOSE HAS BEEN STATED BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN IN THE DETAILS FILED BEFORE THEM. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOW ANCE TO THAT EXTENT WAS JUSTIFIED AND AS REGARDS EXPENSES O N TRIPS TO OTHER PLACES WHERE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE PURPOSE OF VISITS, THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALLOWED THE SAM E TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SPECIFICALL Y POINTED OUT JOURNEYS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE NOT FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND ASSESSEE NEITHER BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR BEFORE LD.CIT(A) WAS ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO CLAIM THAT AIR JOURNEYS PERFORMED I N RESPECT OF PLACES NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WER E UNDERTAKEN FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THEREFORE, THE F ACTS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 WHERE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAD ALLOWED THE EXPENSES ON AIR CRAFT ON THE BASIS OF F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT YEAR ARE NOT SIMILAR TO THIS YEAR WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EXPLAINED THE PURPOSE OF THESE VISITS WHEREAS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 THE SAME WERE EXPLAINED FULLY. EVEN BEFORE US, THE LD. AR HAS SU BMITTED THAT PURPOSE WAS FOR VISIT TO CUSTOMERS BUT DID NOT ELABORATE SPECIFICALLY AS ELABORATED IN THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2001-02. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT AGREE WITH LD. ARS CONTENTION THAT ISSUE WAS COVERED BY THE EARLIER OR DER OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. WE DISMISS GROUND NO.2 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL. 17. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT IN AY 2004-0 5, THE ITAT CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN C ASE FOR AY 2001-02 WHEREIN THE ITAT HAS HELD THAT EXPENDITURE RELATAB LE TO TRIPS MADE FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSES COULD ONLY BE DISALLOWED BY T HE DEPARTMENT. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE PRINCIPLE IN AY 2001-02, THE IT AT PARTLY SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE, WHILE IN AY 2002-03, ITAT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE FOR THE TRIPS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FOR ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 14 NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THE WHOLE DISALLOWANCE WA S SUSTAINED. HOWEVER, IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ONLY FINDING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER READS AS UNDER:- 12. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS OWNING AN AEROPLANE ON LEASE BASIS. AS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER PASSED FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE MANAGI NG DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY HAS BEEN USING THE SAID PLA NE FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY. I N VIEW OF THE NON BUSINESS USE OF THE AEROPLANE, AN ESTIMA TED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,00,000/- IS MADE. 18. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED THAT THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY HAS BEEN USING THE SAID PLA NE FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY. BUT, THEN, INSTEAD OF WORKING THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH TRIPS WHICH W ERE FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES, HE MADE AN ADHOC DISALLOWANCE. COMPLETE DETAILS OF AEROPLANE EXPENSES WITH THE PURPOSE OF EACH VISIT H AVE NOT BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE US OR AT LEAST NOT POINTED OUT BEF ORE US AT THE TIME HEARING. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE LEFT W ITH NO OPTION BUT TO SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WITH THE DIRECTION THAT HE SHALL WORK OUT THE DISALLOWANCE, IF ANY, RE LATABLE TO THE TRIPS MADE BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OR OTHER DIRECTORS FO R NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT HE WILL ALLOW A DEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE MAKING SUCH D ISALLOWANCE. 19. GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL READS AS U NDER:- THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ROH TAK HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IN CHARGING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT. 20. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNS EL FAIRLY AGREED THAT GROUND NO.3 IS ONLY CONSEQUENTIAL. WE, THEREF ORE, DIRECT THE ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 15 ASSESSING OFFICER TO REWORK OUT THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B, IF ANY, AFTER DETERMINING THE INCOME AS PER OUR ORDER. ITA NO.608/DEL/2009 (REVENUES APPEAL : AY 2002 ITA NO.608/DEL/2009 (REVENUES APPEAL : AY 2002 ITA NO.608/DEL/2009 (REVENUES APPEAL : AY 2002 ITA NO.608/DEL/2009 (REVENUES APPEAL : AY 2002- -- -03): 03): 03): 03):- -- - 21. GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UN DER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION OF RS.2,14,03,225/- UNDER SECTION 32 OF INCOME-TAX ACT AS AGAINST THE STRAIGHT LINE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE AO. 22. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT IN ITS RETURN OF IN COME, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF `2,14,03,225/- ON THE WRITT EN DOWN VALUE OF THE ASSETS OF THE POWER GENERATING UNDERTAKING AT T HE RATES SPECIFIED IN APPENDIX-1 READ WITH RULE 5(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FOLLOWING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLE D TO DEPRECIATION ON THE BASIS OF STRAIGHT LINE METHOD AND WORKED OUT TH E DEPRECIATION ALLOWABLE THERE UNDER AT `1,59,10,047/-. AS A RESU LT, HE DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION TO THE EXTENT OF `54,93,178/- WITH THI S OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXERCISE OPTION TO OPT O UT OF THE SAID SUB- RULE BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF I NCOME IN THE INITIAL YEAR. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE AFORESAID DIS ALLOWANCE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR THE AY 2000-01 REPORTED IN 106 TTJ 943 ( DELHI). THIS ACTION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS BEEN QUESTIONED B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN GROUND NO.1. 23. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED AR POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR THE AY 2001-02 IN I TA NO.3257/DEL/2005 HAS FOLLOWED ITS EARLIER ORDER FOR THE AY 2000-01 O N THE ISSUE. HE SUBMITTED FURTHER THAT THE REVENUE HAD PREFERRED AP PEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BEFORE THE HONBLE JURIS DICTIONAL PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT WHICH HAS BEEN DISMISSED VIDE OR DER DATED ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 16 2.9.2008 IN ITA NO.544/2006, REPORTED IN 180 TAXMAN 543 FOR THE AY 2000-01 AND IN ITA NO.53/2008 FOR THE AY 2001-02. 24. LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 25. AS CLAIMED BY THE LEARNED AR, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS GROUND IS FULLY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF DEL HI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR THE AY 2000-01 (SUPRA) AND FOR AY 2001-02 WHICH IS NOW UPHELD BY THE HONBLE J URISDICTIONAL PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 2.9.20 08 (SUPRA). THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE ISSUE F OR THE AY 2000-01 IS BEING REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE:- ON CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER WE FIND THAT AS PER SECOND PROVISO TO RULE 5(1A), THE ASSESSEE MAY INSTEAD OF THE DEPRECIATION SPECIFIED IN APPENDIX 1A ON HIS OPTION BE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION UNDER SUB-RULE (1) READ WITH APPENDIX 1 I.E. ON WDV BASIS IF SUCH OPTION WAS EXE RCISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 OR FOR THE ASSESSMENT RELEV ANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE BEGAN TO GE NERATE POWER, WHICHEVER IS LATER. IT IS SEEN THAT NO PART ICULAR FORMAT OR PROCEDURE HAS BEEN LAID DOWN IN THE SECON D PROVISO IN RELATION TO EXERCISE OF OPTION BY AN ASS ESSEE. SECOND PROVISO ONLY SAYS THAT OPTION IS TO BE EXERC ISED BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF IN COME UNDER SECTION 139(1) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-9 9 IN RESPECT OF POWER GENERATING UNDERTAKING THEN EXISTI NG AND FOR THE FIRST ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH A NEW UNDERT AKING BEGINS TO GENERATE POWER. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT BEGAN TO GENERATE POWER DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. AS PER ANNE XURE- D ANNEXED TO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME CHARGEABLE T O TAX FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 1999-2000, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB-RULE (1) READ WITH APPENDIX-I. ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 17 26. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION ON AN IDENTICAL ISSUE ON SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE UPH OLD THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD DURING THE YEAR. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.1 IS REJECTED. 27. GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UN DER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/ S 80-1A AT RS.73,02,14,186/- AGAINST AT RS.52,00,97,663/- A LLOWED BY THE AO. 28. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CL AIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AMOUNTING TO `73,02,14,186/- IN RESPECT OF PROFITS OF THE UNDERTAKINGS ENGAGED IN G ENERATION OF POWER AT RAIGARH. LOOKING AT THE SCARCITY OF POWER, THE POWER GENERATING UNDERTAKINGS WERE SET UP BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER T O ENSURE UNINTERRUPTED AND UNFLUCTUATED POWER SUPPLY FOR ITS MANUFACTURING UNITS WHICH WERE CRUCIAL FOR OBTAINING OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY. THE POWER GENERATED FROM THE SAID UNDERTAKINGS WAS MAIN LY CONSUMED FOR CAPTIVE PURPOSE IN THE MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AT RAIGARH AND RAIPUR. THE SURPLUS ELECTRICITY GENERA TED WAS SOLD TO THE STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (SEB) AT THE PRICE FIXED BY THE SEB, AS PER THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SEB. 29. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESS EE CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM TH E UNITS ENGAGED IN GENERATION OF POWER, SINCE THE UNITS SATISFIED ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I OF TH E ACT. 30. THE ASSESSEE RECORDED TRANSFER OF POWER PRODUCE D AND CAPTIVELY CONSUMED BY THE MANUFACTURING UNITS AT THE RATE ON WHICH ELECTRICITY WAS SUPPLIED BY THE SEBS TO THE INDUSTRIAL CONSUME RS BEING `3.72/3.29 ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 18 PER UNIT, WHICH CORRESPONDS TO THE MARKET PRICE OF POWER AS MANDATED BY SUB-SECTION (8) OF SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. 31. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, RELYING UPON ASSESSMENTS FOR THE EARLIER YEARS, HELD THAT THE INTER UNIT TRANSFER OF POWER F ROM THE POWER PLANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AT `2.32 PER UNIT, BEING THE PRICE AT WHICH POWER WAS SOLD TO SEB AND NOT AT `3.72/3.29 PER UNI T BEING THE PRICE CHARGED BY THE SEB AS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQ UENTLY, HE HELD THAT THE DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT TO BE RECOMPUTED BY TREATING `2.32 AS THE MARKET PRICE OF THE POWER AND ACCORDINGLY REDUCED THE DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE UNDER T HAT SECTION TO `52,00,97,663/- FROM `73,02,14,186/- AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE AFORESAID DISALLOWAN CE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE IN ITA NO.3257/DEL/2005 FOR THE AY 2001-02. AGAINST THIS ACTION OF LEARNED CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. 32. THE LEARNED AR, AT THE OUTSET, POINTED OUT THAT THE REVENUE HAD MOVED AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR TH E AY 2001-02 WHICH HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 2.9.2008 FOR THE AY 2000-01 REPORTE D IN 180 TAXMAN 543 AND FOR AY 2001-02 IN ITA NO.53/2008. 33. IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND, THE LEARNED DR HAS BA SICALLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE SUBMITTED THA T THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HERO MOTOR CORPORATION FOR THE AY 2006-07 IS RELEVANT FOR ADJUDICATION OF AN IDENTICAL ISSUE. HE SUBMITTED FURTHER THAT THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ADDITIONAL CIT VS. JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LID 16 SOT 509, WHICH IS ASSESSEES OWN CASE, IS AGAINST THE REVENUE BUT THE ISSUE REMAINS OPEN FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I.E. THE LOSSES ON T&D SUFFERED BY THE SEB (WHICH S UPPLIES LARGE ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 19 GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS) ARE NOT THERE IN THE CASE OF IN TERNAL CAPTIVE CONSUMPTION AND HENCE INTERNAL TRANSFER PRICING WOU LD REQUIRE TO FACTOR THE SAME TO DETERMINE IF THE PRICE CHARGED INTERNAL LY IS AT ARMS LENGTH OR IS A MANIPULATED PRICE TO AUGMENT PRICES/PROFITS ARTIFICIALLY TO AVAIL OF MORE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA. 34. THE LEARNED AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIA NCE ON THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION OVER HERE THAT TRANSFER WAS NOT RECORDED AT THE RATE AT WHICH THE SURPLUS ELECTRICITY WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO SEB I.E. `2 .32 PER UNIT SINCE THE SAID PRICE WAS THE PRICE DETERMINED AND DICTATED BY THE SEBS AND THIS COULD NOT BE TREATED AS THE MARKET VALUE OF THE P OWER. HE SUBMITTED FURTHER THAT SINCE THE ISSUE IS SETTLED BY THE HON' BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, HENCE, IT MAY BE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE. 35. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND SPECIALLY THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISD ICTIONAL PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSE LF FOR THE AY 2000- 01 AND 2001-02 (SUPRA), WE DO NOT FIND REASON TO IN TERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THIS R EGARD. THE SAME IS UPHELD. GROUND NO.2 IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 36. GROUND NO.3 READS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.50,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF FRONT END FEE, WH ICH IS CAPITAL IN NATURE. 37. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IS SUED NON- CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURES FOR `20 CRORES TO UTI BANK L IMITED TO MEET FIXED CAPITAL AND WORKING CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS. TH E ASSESSEE DEBITED `50 LAKHS (I.E. 2.5% OF `20 CRORES) TO PROFIT & LOS S ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF PROCESSING FEE CHARGED BY THE BANK UNDER THE TER MS OF ISSUE AND ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 20 CLAIMED THE SAME AS REVENUE DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER DISALLOWED THE FRONT END FEES OF `50 LAKHS BY TREAT ING THE SAME AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EMPLOYED THE FUNDS FOR COMMISSIONING 55 MW POWER IN RAIGARH. TH E LEARNED CIT(A) HAS, HOWEVER, DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEING SATISFIED WITH THE SUBMISSION MADE IN THIS RE GARD BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS ACTION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY HAS BEEN IMPUGNED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS GROUND. 38. IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND, LEARNED DR HAS BASICA LLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 39. LEARNED AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, CITED THE FOLLOW ING DECISIONS WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THESE CASES, IT HAS BEEN HEL D THAT UPFRONT FEES, FINANCIAL AND LEGAL CHARGES INCURRED IN RELATION TO OBTAINING LOANS/ISSUING DEBENTURES FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE B USINESS OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE DEDUCTION :- (I) INDIA CEMENTS LTD. VS. CIT 60 ITR 52 (SC). (II) DCIT VS. GUJARAT ALKALIES AND CHEMICALS LTD. 299 ITR 85 (SC). (III) CIT VS. SUPER SPINNING MILLS LTD. 296 ITR 168 (CH ENNAI). (IV) CIT VS. MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD. 290 ITR 107. (V) BOROSIL GLASS WORKS LTD. VS. ACIT (2004) 3 SOT 94 0 (MUM.TRI.). (VI) PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LIMITED VS. CIT 80 ITR 415 (B OM). (VII) GUJARAT GUARDIAN VS. JCIT 114 TTJ 565 (DELHI) AFF IRMED BY DELHI HC IN 177 TAXMAN 484/222 CTR 526. (VIII) SHRI RAMA MULTI TECH LIMITED VS. ACIT 92 TTJ 568 (AHD.TRI.). (IX) HAVELLS INDIA LIMITED VS. ACIT 140 TTJ 283 (DEL. ). ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 21 40. THE LEARNED AR ALSO CITED THE DECISION OF HONB LE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SECURE METERS LTD. 321 ITR 6 11 (RAJ.), WHEREIN EVEN IN THE CONTEXT OF CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURES, EXPE NDITURE INCURRED WAS HELD TO BE ALLOWABLE AS A REVENUE DEDUCTION. H E POINTED OUT THAT THE SLP PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE SAID O RDER HAS ALSO BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SLP NO.10 548/2009. 41. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES B ELOW, WE FIND THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIA CEMENTS LTD. 60 ITR 52 (SC) AND THE DECISION OF M UMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BOROSIL GLASS WORKS LTD. (2004) 3 SOT 940. HE HAS ALSO TAKEN STRENGTH FROM THE DECISION OF HON'BL E GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CORE HEALTHCARE LIMITED 251 ITR 61 UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN 298 ITR 194 AND O THERS. THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BOROSIL GLASS WORKS LTD. 9SUPRA) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF INDIA CEMENTS LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE FRONT END FEES PAID WAS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT FRONT END FEES WAS LIKE PROCESSING FEES FOR SIGNING LOAN AGREEMENT AND WAS, THEREFORE, A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. SINCE THE DECISION TAKEN BY T HE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THESE CITED DECISIONS, W E DO NOT FIND REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER IN THIS REGARD. THE SAME IS UPHELD. GROUND NO.3 IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 42. GROUND NO.4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UN DER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.62,50,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST DISALLOW ED BY AO TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL EXPENSES. 43. THE FACTS RELEVANT ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IS SUED NON- CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURES TO UTI BANK LIMITED FOR `20 CRORES CARRYING ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 22 INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 13% PAYABLE QUARTERLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED DEDUCTION OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO `62,5 0,000/- ON THE BASIS THAT SINCE THE FUNDS WERE UTILIZED FOR COMMIS SIONING 55 MW POWER PROJECT AT RAIGARH, THE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUN T OF INTEREST WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS HOWEVER REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION FOR INTEREST AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. THIS ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS BEEN IMPUGNED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS GROUND. 44. IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND, LEARNED DR PLACED REL IANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 45. LEARNED AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE ISSUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING, SALE AND POWER GENERATION. THE N ON-CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURES WERE ADMITTEDLY ISSUED IN ORDER TO RAISE FUNDS FOR MEETING CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND FOR WORKING CAPITAL REQUIRE MENTS. THE SETTING UP OF 55 MW POWER PROJECT AT RAIGARH WAS PART OF EX PANSION OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- (I) SETABGANJ SUGAR MILLS LTD. VS. CIT 41 ITR 272 (SC ). (II) CIT VS. PRITHVI INSURANCE CO. LTD. 63 ITR 632 (SC ). (III) PRODUCE EXCHANGE CORPORATION LTD. VS. ITO 77 ITR 739. (IV) B.R. LTD. VS. V.P. GUPTA CIT BOMBAY 113 ITR 647 ( SC). (V) INDIA CEMENTS LTD. VS. CIT 60 ITR 52 (SC). (VI) CIT VS. RANE (MADRAS) LTD. 293 ITR 459 (DEL.). (VII) JAY ENGINEERING WORKS LTD. VS. CIT 311 ITR 405 (D EL). (VIII) INDORAMA SYNTHETICS LTD. 333 ITR 18 (DEL). (IX) CIT VS. MONNET INDUSTRIES LTD. 332 ITR 627 (DEL.) . ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 23 46. LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISO T O SECTION 36(1)(III) INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2003 EFFECT IVE FROM 1.4.2004, HAS BEEN HELD TO BE PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE BY THE HO N'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CORE HEALTH CARE LTD. 298 IT R 194. 47. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND ESPECIALL Y THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE LEARNED AR INCLUDING THE DECISION OF H ON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CORE HEALTH CARE LTD. (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED DEDUCTION FOR INTEREST P AID TO UTI BANK FOR NON-CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURES UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE S OF BUSINESS. THE FACT THAT THE SETTING UP OF 55 MW POWER PROJECT AT RAIGARH WAS PART OF EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN SATISFACTORILY REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE. WE ARE THU S OF THE VIEW THAT THE ACTION OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD IS JUST IFIED. THE SAME IS UPHELD. GROUND NO.4 IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 48. GROUND NO.5 READS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.4,75,724/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CONSULTANCY CHARGE S PAID TO PRICE WATER HOUSE WHICH WAS HELD TO BE NOT RELATED TO BUSINESS BY AO. 49. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID C ONSULTANCY CHARGES AMOUNTING TO `4,75,724/- TO PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS (PWC) FOR PREPARING AN INCEPTION REPORT ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH. THE SAME WAS PREPAR ED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CHHATTISGARH WITH OBJECTIVE TO DEVELOP INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITIES IN THE NEWLY FORMED STAT E OF CHHATTISGARH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SAID EXPENDITURE H OLDING THAT THE SAME DID NOT RELATE TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WAS INCURRED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TO SECUR E ASSETS OF ENDURING NATURE. ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 24 50. LEARNED DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT OR DER WHEREAS CONTENTS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER IN THIS REGAR D HAVE BEEN CITED BY THE LEARNED AR. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ENTERED BUSINESS INTEREST IN THE STATE OF CHHAT TISGARH. THE IMPROVED INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITIES WOULD RESULT IN ECONOMIES OF THE STATE IN DAY TO DAY WORKING OF THE ASSESSEE IN SHOR T RUN AND IMPROVED BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT/CONDITIONS RESULTING IN RICHER DIVIDEND IN THE LONG RUN. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID EXPENDITURE W AS INCURRED TO SUGGEST TO THE GOVERNMENT WAYS AND MEANS TO IMPROVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY IN THE STATE, WHICH WAS IN THE LARGER INTEREST OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. 51. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW, WE FIND THAT WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS TAKEN STRENGTH FROM THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENC H OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HPCL VS. DCIT 96 ITD 186 IN WHICH, UNDER SIMILAR FACTS, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED. THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID CASE OF HPCL (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT JUST BECAUSE AN EXPENDITURE WAS VOLUNTARY IN NATURE AND WAS NOT FOR CED ON THE ASSESSEE BY A STATUTORY OBLIGATION, IT COULD NOT CE ASE TO BE A BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HA D INCURRED EXPENDITURE ON 20 POINT PROGRAMME IN VIEW OF THE SP ECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIS ALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED. THE TRIBUNAL HAS, HOWEVER, D ELETED THE DISALLOWANCE WITH THE SAID FINDING AND OBSERVATION THAT IT CANNOT BUT BE IN THE BUSINESS INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO ABIDE BY SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA FOR 2 0 POINT PROGRAMME. IN THIS REGARD, THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MADRAS REF INERIES LTD. 266 ITR 170 (MAD). HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE CONCEPT OF BUSINESS IS NOT STATIC. IT IS EVOLVED OVER A PERIO D OF TIME TO INCLUDE IN ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 25 ITS FOLD THE CONCRETE EXPRESSION OF CARE AND CONCER N FOR THE SOCIETY AT LARGE AND THE PEOPLE OF THE LOCALITY IN WHICH THE B USINESS IS LOCATED IN PARTICULAR. SINCE THE DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELL ATE AUTHORITY IS COVERED BY THIS DECISION FOLLOWED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE THEREWITH. THE SAME IS UPHELD. GROUND N O.5 IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 52. GROUND NO.6 READS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.1,38,600/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ACQUISITION OF CAP ITAL ASSETS. 53. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS PAID `1,38,600/- TO SHREE JI ENGINEERS AS PROGRESSIVE PA YMENT OUT OF TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF `6,93,000/- FOR SUPPLYING THE DE SIGN AND DRAWINGS FOR NECESSARY CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS IN THE MOUL D OF THE SLAB CASTER, AS THE QUALITY OF SLAB BEING PRODUCED WAS G ETTING AFFECTED DUE TO THE PROLONGED USE OF THE SLAB CASTER. IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS MERELY IN THE NATURE OF PRELIMINARY STUDY FOR CARRYING OUT REPAIRS IN THE EXISTING ASSET. THE ASSESSING O FFICER DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE ON THE BASIS THAT IT WAS INCURRED FOR A CQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSET. LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE WA S ATTRIBUTABLE TO CURRENT REPAIRS AND THERE HAD BEEN NO INCREASE IN C APACITY OF THE ASSET AND HENCE, THE EXPENDITURE IS REVENUE IN NATURE. 54. IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND, LEARNED DR HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. LEARNED AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, S UBMITTED THAT THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IS FULLY COVERED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- (I) EMPIRE JUTE CO. LTD. VS. CIT 124 ITR 1 (SC). (II) ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. 172 ITR 257 (SC) . ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 26 (III) ALEMBIC CHEMICAL WORKS CO.LTD. VS. CIT 177 ITR 37 7(SC). (IV) SARAVANA SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD. 293 ITR 201(SC). (V) CIT VS. RAMRAJU SURGICAL COTTON MILLS [2007] 294 ITR 328 (SC). 55. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND HAVING GO NE THROUGH THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON, WE FIND THAT THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IS FULLY COVERED BY THE CITED DECISIONS. IN THE CASE OF EMPIRE JUTE CO. LTD. (SUPRA), HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS BE EN PLEASED TO LAY DOWN THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING AS TO WHAT CONSTITUT ES A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THE RATIO DECIDENDI AS LAID DOWN IN THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT HAS BEEN REITERATED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. (SUPRA) AN D AGAIN IN THE CASE OF ALEMBIC CHEMICAL WORKS CO.LTD. (SUPRA). IN THE CASE OF SARAVANA SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD. (SUPRA), HON'BLE S UPREME COURT HAS BEEN PLEASED TO LAY DOWN THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING AS TO WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE WOULD CONSTITUTE CURRENT REPAIRS ALLO WABLE UNDER SECTION 31 OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF RAMRAJU SURGICAL COT TON MILLS (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN PLEASED TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THE ABSENCE OF REQUISI TE DETAILS REGARDING PRODUCTION CAPACITY REMAINING CONSTANT EVEN AFTER R EPLACEMENT. WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US, IT IS UNDI SPUTED FACT THAT THERE IS NO INCREASE IN THE PRODUCTION CAPACITY. WE THUS ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE HAS RIGHTLY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CLAIMED EXP ENDITURE WAS REVENUE IN NATURE. THE SAME IS UPHELD. GROUND NO. 6 IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 56. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO.221 221 221 221/DEL/2009 ( /DEL/2009 ( /DEL/2009 ( /DEL/2009 (REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE REVENUES APPEAL : AY 200 S APPEAL : AY 200 S APPEAL : AY 200 S APPEAL : AY 2005 55 5- -- -06 0606 06): ):): ):- -- - 57. THE REVENUE HAS QUESTIONED THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 27 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN ALLOWING DEDUCT ION U/S 80-1A AT RS.196,70,79,113/- AS AGAINST AT RS.117,78,86,782/- ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION OF RS.14,86,233/- U/S 32 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, AGAINS T STRAIGHT LINE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. 58. AT THE OUTSET OF HEARING, LEARNED DR POINTED OU T THAT BOTH THE GROUNDS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HEREINABOVE FOR THE AY 2005-06 WITH ONLY D IFFERENCE IN THE QUANTUM OF THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IA AND DEPRE CIATION CLAIMED U/S 32 OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE ISSUE S ARE COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR THE AY 2000-01 AND 2001-02 IN ITA NO.544 OF 2006 AND ITA NO.53 OF 2008 RESPECTIVELY A S WELL AS BY THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IN ITA NO.3245/DEL/2008 . BOTH THE PARTIES ADOPTED SIMILAR ARGUMENTS AS ADVANCED BY TH EM ON AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HEREINABOVE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 59. SINCE THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE GROUNDS ARE CO VERED BY THE ABOVE CITED DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSEL F FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01, 2001-02 AND 2004-05, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER IN THIS RE GARD. THE SAME IS UPHELD. BOTH THE GROUND NO.1 AND 2 ARE THUS REJECT ED. 60. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.168/DEL/2009 (ASSESSEES APPEAL : AY 2005 ITA NO.168/DEL/2009 (ASSESSEES APPEAL : AY 2005 ITA NO.168/DEL/2009 (ASSESSEES APPEAL : AY 2005 ITA NO.168/DEL/2009 (ASSESSEES APPEAL : AY 2005- -- -06): 06): 06): 06):- -- - 61. THE ASSESSEE HAS IMPUGNED THE FIRST APPELLATE O RDER ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 28 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , ROHTAK HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE IN TREATING RS.58,88,22,668/- BEING CAP ITAL RECEIPT RECEIVED AS REVENUE RECEIPT. 2. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ROHTAK HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN CONCLUDING THAT THE SUBSI DY RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS AN ASSISTANCE IN CARRYING ON ITS TRADE OR BUSINESS AND HENCE IT IS R EVENUE RECEIPT. 3. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ROHTAK HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN NOT ACCEPTING THE DECISIO N OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF DCIT V RELIANC E INDUSTRIES LTD. (2005) 273 ITR AT 16/88 ITD 273, WH OSE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE APPELLANT COMPAN Y. 4. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ROHTAK HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN NOT ALLOWING THE SUBSIDY AMOUNTING TO RS.58,88,22,668/- AS CAPITAL RECEIPT F OR THE REASON THAT THE BENEFIT OF THE SUBSIDY PART BECAME OPERATIVE ONLY AT THE TIME OF COMMENCEMENT OF THE PRODUCTION, THEREFORE REVENUE RECEIPT IN DEFIANCE O F THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF PONNI SUGAR & CHEMICALS LTD. V. CIT (2008) 174 TAXMAN 87 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE SUBSIDY I S PAID IS NOT RELEVANT. 5. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.14,58,085 OUT OF THE EXPENDITURE ON RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE OF AIRCRAFTS FOR ALLEGED NON BUSINESS U SE. 6. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ER RED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CHARGING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT. 62. BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT GROUNDS NO.1 TO 4 ARE HAVING AN IDENTICAL ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE CLAIMED SUBSIDY A MOUNTING TO RS.58,88,22,668/- IS CAPITAL RECEIPT OR REVENUE REC EIPT AS RAISED IN THE ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 29 GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 WITH ONLY DIFFERENCE IN THE QUANTUM. BOTH T HE PARTIES ADOPTED SAME ARGUMENT AS ADVANCED BY THEM ON THIS IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. WE THUS FOLLOWING THE SAME DECISION TAKEN ON AN IDENTICAL I SSUE HEREINABOVE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 DECIDE THE ISSUE AGAINS T THE ASSESSEE. IN RESULT GROUND NO.1 TO 4 ARE REJECTED. GROUND NO.5 GROUND NO.5 GROUND NO.5 GROUND NO.5 : : : :- -- - 63. IN THIS GROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED DIS ALLOWANCE OF `14,58,085/- OUT OF THE EXPENDITURE ON RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE OF AIRCRAFTS FOR ALLEGED NON BUSINESS USE. 64. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF DELHI BEN CH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA NO. 3257 AND 3485/ DEL/ 2005. 65. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIA NCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 66. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED THE AMOUN T OF `14,85,085/- OUT OF THE CLAIMED EXPENDITURE FOR RUNNING AND MAIN TENANCE OF AIRCRAFTS ON ADHOC BASIS ALLEGING THAT IT WAS NOT F OR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REMAINED THAT DE TAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON AIR JOURNEY WERE PRODUCED A ND ALL THE JOURNEYS WERE RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE IN CURRED ON AN ADHOC BASIS BY PICKING SOME OF THE JOURNEYS MADE AND HOLD ING THAT THEY WERE NOT FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECOR D ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE JOURNEY WAS FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES. WE FIND ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 30 THAT UNDER SIMILAR FACTS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 1-02, THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF (SUPRA) HAS HELD THA T EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO TRIPS MADE FOR THE ALLEGED NON-BUSINES S PURPOSE COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AND HAS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THAT THE EXPENSES FOR TRIPS TO MEET CUSTOMERS AND/OR PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS BE A LLOWED. WE, THUS, FOLLOWING THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001- 02, SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO ALLOW THOSE EXPENDITURE WHICH HAVE BEE N INCURRED ON TRIPS TO MEET CUSTOMERS AND/OR PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS. 67. GROUND NO.5 IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES. 68. GROUND NO.6 REGARDING CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDE R SECTION 234B OF THE ACT IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE, HENCE, DOES NOT NEED INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. 69. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONA L GROUND:- THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEDUCTION OF RS.12,69,91,881 WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFITS IN TERMS OF CLAUSE (IV) OF EXPLANATION 1 T O SECTION 115JB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). 70. LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT DOES NO T WISH TO PRESS THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND, WHEREIN A DIRECTION HAS BEE N SOUGHT TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION OF RS.1 2,69,91,881/- WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFITS IN TERMS OF CLAUSE (IV) OF E XPLANATION E-1 TO SECTION 115 ZB OF THE ACT. WE THUS REJECT THIS ADDI TIONAL GROUND AS WITHDRAWN. 71. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA-368/DEL/2009 & 3 OTHERS 31 72. IN SUMMARY, (I) THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2002-03 IS DEEMED TO BE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES; (II) THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE AY 2002-03 IS DISMISSED; (III) THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE AY 2005-06 IS DISMISSED; AND (IV) THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2005-06 IS DEEMED TO BE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH MARCH, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( (( (I.C. SUDHIR I.C. SUDHIR I.C. SUDHIR I.C. SUDHIR) )) ) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 06.03.2014 VK./S.SINHA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE : M/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED , M/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED, M/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED, M/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED, DELHI ROAD, HISSAR, HARYA DELHI ROAD, HISSAR, HARYA DELHI ROAD, HISSAR, HARYA DELHI ROAD, HISSAR, HARYANA. NA. NA. NA. 2. REVENUE : ADDITIONAL/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ADDITIONAL/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ADDITIONAL/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ADDITIONAL/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HISSAR RANGE, HISSAR, HARYANA. HISSAR RANGE, HISSAR, HARYANA. HISSAR RANGE, HISSAR, HARYANA. HISSAR RANGE, HISSAR, HARYANA. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR