THE ACIT-Circle 4(1), Indore V. SHRI SATISH JAIN, Indore

ITA 620/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5832 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: LALCHAND
• Keywords: Question of law; Assessment record; TDS
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 143(3); 92; 133(6); 13

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE .., .., % BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT, CIRCLE 4(1), INDORE. .. ./ PAN: ABVPJ0983D VS. SHRI SATISH JAIN, PROP. SATISH AGRO INDUSTRIES, INDORE. / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY SHRI PANKAJ SHAH AND SHRI G.J.SHAH, C.A. / RESPONDENT BY SHRI LALCHAND, CIT DR AND SHRI MOHD. JAVED, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 20.12.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16.01.2016 / O R D E R PER O.P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMEBR. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II, INDORE .. . / I.T.A. NO. 620/IND/2016 %' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 I.T.A.NO. 620/IND/2016 A.Y.2011-12 SHRI SATISH JAIN, INDORE. PAGE 2 OF 14 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] DATED 31.03 .2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AS AGAINST APPE AL DECIDED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF T HE ACT DATED 26.03.2014 OF ACIT, CIRCLE 4(1), INDORE [HERE INAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO]. 2. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- (I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A)-II, INDORE, IS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION EXPENSES. (II) WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION EXPENSES WHEN ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO PROVE THE SERVICES RENDERED FOR WHICH SUCH COMMISSION PAYMENT IS BEING MADE. (III) WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION WHEN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS SPREAD ALL OVER THE M.P . I.T.A.NO. 620/IND/2016 A.Y.2011-12 SHRI SATISH JAIN, INDORE. PAGE 3 OF 14 BUT THE MAXIMUM OF COMMISSION AGENTS BELONGS TO INDORE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DEALING IN SALES OF PLANT PROTECTION EQ UIPMENTS WHICH ARE USED ONLY FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. MORE THAN 80% OF THE SALES ARE MADE THROUGH GOVERNMENT NODAL AGEN CIES VIZ. MADHYA PRADESH AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORAT ION LIMITED AND MADHYA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKE TING FEDERATION IN STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, MAHARASHTRA STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED IN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, CHHATTISGARH MANDI PRAKOSTH MARKETI NG BOARD IN THE STATE OF CHHATISGARH. THE AO NOTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS. 1,64,08,950/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT . IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND REQUI REMENT OF COMMISSION AGENTS FOR FACILITATING THE PURCHASES FR OM THE ASSESSEE, THE NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WERE ISS UED TO THE AFORESAID AGENCIES, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE AGENCIE S HAVE I.T.A.NO. 620/IND/2016 A.Y.2011-12 SHRI SATISH JAIN, INDORE. PAGE 4 OF 14 REPLIED THAT THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT OF AGENTS. ON THIS BASIS, THE AO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE PROP OSING TO DISALLOW COMMISSION EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE FILED EVI DENCES LIKE AFFIDAVITS OF AGENTS DESCRIBING THE SERVICES RENDERED AND CONFIRMING THE TRANSACTIONS, DETAILS OF TDS MADE, B ANK ACCOUNT DETAILS, RETURNS OF INCOME OF AGENTS WERE FI LED. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT REPLIES FROM VA RIOUS GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS PROVED THAT SUCH COMMISSION EXPENSES ARE NOT GENUINE. THEREFORE, THE AO CONCLUD ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED MODUS OPERANDI FOR REDUCIN G THE PROFIT BY WAY OF BOOKING COMMISSION. FURTHER, SUCH I NCORRECT AND INVARIABLY PAYMENT OF COMMISSION IS ALSO AGAINS T THE POLICY OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. THE AO FURTHER OBSER VED THAT MOST OF THE AGENTS WERE BASED AT INDORE, THEREFORE, THEY COULD NOT HAVE CATERED TO 32 DISTRICTS OF THE STATE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED BEFORE THE AO THAT SUCH PAYMENT OF COM MISSION WAS ALLOWED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIA L YEAR 2010-11. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INFLATED DEBIT S IDE OF THE I.T.A.NO. 620/IND/2016 A.Y.2011-12 SHRI SATISH JAIN, INDORE. PAGE 5 OF 14 PROFIT BY BOOKING FICTITIOUS EXPENSES UNDER THE HEA D COMMISSION. THEREFORE, THE COMMISSION EXPENSES OF RS. 1,64,08,950/- WAS DISALLOWED. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 5. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE DETAILED NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY SUCH COMMIS SION AGENTS, WHICH INCLUDED ENTERING INTO RATE CONTRACT, MARKETING IN THE VILLAGES, EDUCATING THE USAGE, DEMONSTRATION , COMPLETING PAPER FORMALITIES, DOCUMENTATION, FOLLOW UP FOR PAYMENT AFTER SALES SERVICES WERE SUBMITTED. THEREFO RE, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT SUCH FUNDS/JOBS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXECUTED WITHOUT MAN-POWERS EAR-MARKED FOR THE VILLAGES AND VA RIOUS WORKS. FURTHER, ALL THE EXPENSES INCLUDED TRAVELLING , LODGING ETC. IN PROVIDING SERVICES WERE SUPPOSED TO BORNE B Y THE REPRESENTATIVES/AGENTS. THEREFORE, IT WAS ARGUED THA T THIS BUSINESS POLICY TO PAY COMMISSION INSTEAD OF FIXED SALARY HAS BEEN FOUND ECONOMICAL ALSO, WHICH ALSO REDUCED TRAVE LLING AND DAILY ALLOWANCES, WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO BE PAID TO EM PLOYEES I.T.A.NO. 620/IND/2016 A.Y.2011-12 SHRI SATISH JAIN, INDORE. PAGE 6 OF 14 FOR DIFFERENT STATION WORK BESIDES STATUTORY COMPLIA NCES IN CASE OF PERMANENT EMPLOYEES SUCH AS P. F., E. S. I ., GRATUITY, BONUS ETC. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE FEDERATION /AGENCIES WERE NOT CONCERNED WHETHER THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED SERV ICES TO EMPLOYEES OR WITH THE HELP OF AGENTS. IT WAS ALSO SUB MITTED THAT THE AO DID NOT CHOOSE TO CROSS EXAMINE THE AG ENTS, WHO HAD FURNISHED DETAILS OF SERVICES RENDERED AND CONF IRMED THE TRANSACTIONS ON AFFIDAVITS, WHICH IS AGAINST THE DEC ISION OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MEHTA PAREKH & CO. VS. CI T, (1956) 30 ITR 181 (S.C.), WHERE THE LAW HAS BEEN LAID DOWN TH AT AFFIDAVITS CANNOT BE REJECTED IN LAW UNLESS SUCH DEP ONENTS HAVE EITHER BEEN CROSS-EXAMINED OR CALLED UPON TO P RODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWO RN BY THEM. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. PURE PHARMA (P) LIMITED, 270 ITR 382 (MP), WHEREIN COMMIS SION WAS FOUND PAID ON SUPPLIES MADE TO GOVERNMENT AND IT S AGENCIES AND ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO VARIOUS PARTIES BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES/DEMAND DRAFTS, THE IDENTITY O F EACH OF I.T.A.NO. 620/IND/2016 A.Y.2011-12 SHRI SATISH JAIN, INDORE. PAGE 7 OF 14 THE AGENTS WAS ESTABLISHED AND THE EXPENDITURE WAS FO UND INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. IT WAS HELD THAT SUC H EXPENSES WERE ALLOWABLE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITIO N WAS DELETED. IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO, THE AGENTS HAVE CONFIRMED THE SERVICES RENDERED AND THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANYTHING CONTRARY TO THE ADMISSION OF THE AGENTS, WH ETHER THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY CHEQUES AFTER DEDUCTION OF TDS. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN A SUPPLIER OF AGRICULTURAL EQUIPM ENTS TO THE FARMERS OF AS MANY AS THREE STATES AND 80 % OF THE SALES HAS BROUGHT BY THE AO HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH THESE GOVER NMENT AGENCIES. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE AO WHILE FRA MING THE QUERIES HAS DIRECTLY ASKED THE NODAL AGENCIES AS UN DER :- B. WHETHER SUCH PURCHASE WAS MADE THROUGH ANY COMMISSION AGENT ? IF YES, NAME AND ADDRESS OF SUCH COMMISSION AGENT. 6. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE REPLY TO THIS QUERY HAS TO BE NEGATIVED AS THE REQUIREMENTS OF AG ENTS FOR I.T.A.NO. 620/IND/2016 A.Y.2011-12 SHRI SATISH JAIN, INDORE. PAGE 8 OF 14 FACILITATING OF SALES AND AFTER SALES SERVICES IS O F THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND NOT OF THE GOVERNMENT NODAL AGENCIES. THEREFORE, THE BASIS ADOPTED BY THE AO FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCES OF COMMISSION HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AS WELL FOUNDED AS THE SAME HAS EMANATED FROM THE WRONG QUES TION FRAMED BY THE AO. THERE ARE NUMBER OF FORMALITIES R ELATED TO TENDER, SALES, ISSUES RELATED TO PAYMENTS, AWARENES S OF FARMERS, INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENTS, PROPER HANDLIN G, AFTER SALE SERVICES ETC. WHICH ARE GENERALLY HANDLED BY THE ASS ESSEE OR THE REPRESENTATIVES/AGENTS. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER GO ING THROUGH THE LETTERS OF M.P. STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPME NT CORPORATION LIMITED DATED 21.02.2014 SUBMITTED TO A O ON 25.02.2014, WHEREIN THEY HAVE DETAILED THE VARIOUS F ORMALITIES AND SERVICES REQUIRED TO BE HANDLED BY THE ASSESSEE OR REPRESENTATIVES/AGENTS. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS AND RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. PURE PHARMA (P) LIMITED, 270 ITR 382 (MP) AND O N TOTALITY OF FACTS, THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THE COMMIS SION EXPENSES HAVE BEEN GENUINELY AND REASONABLY CLAIMED AS I.T.A.NO. 620/IND/2016 A.Y.2011-12 SHRI SATISH JAIN, INDORE. PAGE 9 OF 14 SUCH. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE A DDITION OF RS. 1,64,08,950/-. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. THE LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPLYING AGRICULTURAL EQUIPME NTS TO THE FARMERS THROUGH NODAL AGENCIES OF MADHYA PRADESH AG RO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHE RS. THE AO ON ENQUIRY FOUND THAT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES DO NOT REQUIRE ANY AGENTS. THEREFORE, THE LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT THE AOS FINDINGS WERE CORRECT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED THIS TYPE OF MODUS OPERANDI TO REDUCE I TS PROFIT. THE LD. SR.DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ALLEGATION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE BUSINESS RELA TED TO GOVERNMENT SUPPLIES, NO COMMISSION IS REQUIRED. HOW EVER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ARE MEREL Y I.T.A.NO. 620/IND/2016 A.Y.2011-12 SHRI SATISH JAIN, INDORE. PAGE 10 OF 14 FACILITATORS AND THE ACTUAL BUYERS ARE FARMERS AND, THEREFORE, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE CREATE DEMAND, ADVE RTISE THE PRODUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, COMPLETE THE FORMALITY, FO LLOW UP THE PAYMENT AND CARRY OUT VARIOUS OTHER SERVICES AS DES CRIBED IN THE DETAILED SUBMISSION BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS CI T(A) AND INCORPORATED IN ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS A COMMERCIAL DECISION OF THE ASSESSEE NO T TO RECRUIT EMPLOYEES AND AVAIL SERVICES OF REPRESENTATIVES, WH ICH SAVED VARIOUS FIXED COSTS AND WAS FOR A PERFORMANCE ORIENT ED WERE LIKE VARIOUS ALLOWANCES OF TRAVELLING, DEARNESS ALL OWANCE, P.F. E.S.I.C. LIABILITY AND COMPLIANCE THEREOF. IT WAS A LSO SUBMITTED THAT THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES HAVE CONFIRMED THE ROL ES OF THEIR REPRESENTATIVES IN CARRYING OUT FUNCTIONS REL ATED TO SUPPLY IN THEIR LETTERS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PURE PHARMA, (2005) 144 TAXMAN 364 (MP) OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT, WHEREIN THE REQUIREMENT OF AGENTS/ REPRESENTATIVES I N THE CASE OF BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT SUPPLIES AND PAYMENT OF COMMISSION THEREIN HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE HON'BL E I.T.A.NO. 620/IND/2016 A.Y.2011-12 SHRI SATISH JAIN, INDORE. PAGE 11 OF 14 JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. FURTHER, GOVERNMENT AGEN CIES HAVE CONFIRMED THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE REPRESENTATIVES AN D TDS OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION WAS MADE THROUGH CHEQUES AND CONFIRMATION WAS FILED WITH THE AGENTS WITH THEIR TAX RETURNS, THEIR AFFIDAVITS AND PAN DETAILS ETC. THEREFORE, TH E GENUINENESS OF EXPENSES AS WELL AS IDENTITY HAS BEEN ESTABLISHE D. HENCE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN DELETING THE DISALLOWA NCES MADE BY THE AO. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS, RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AS WELL AS FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED DETAILED EVIDE NCES LIKE NAMES OF THE AGENTS, PAN NUMBERS, DESCRIBING SERVIC ES RENDERED BY THE AGENTS, CONFIRMING THE TRANSACTION , DETAILS OF THE TDS MADE, BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS WITH RETURNS OF I NCOME OF AGENTS. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE OR C ROSS- EXAMINE THESE EVIDENCES BY CALLING THE CONCERNED AG ENTS. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE QUESTION FRAMED BY THE AO TO VAR IOUS GOVERNMENT AGENTS LIKE MADHYA PRADESH AGRO INDUSTRI ES I.T.A.NO. 620/IND/2016 A.Y.2011-12 SHRI SATISH JAIN, INDORE. PAGE 12 OF 14 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND MADHYA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION ETC. WAS WHETHER SU CH PURCHASES WERE MADE THROUGH ANY COMMISSION AGENTS ? IF YES, THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF SUCH COMMISSION AGENTS. THEREFORE, THE REPLY TO THIS QUESTION HAD TO BE IN NEGATIVE AS THE COMMISSION AGENTS WERE APPOINTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOT BY THE GOVERNMENT NODAL AGENCIES. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DEALING IN SUPPLIES OF EQUIPMENTS TO TH E FARMERS IN AS MANY AS THREE STATES SPREAD OVER A LARGE GEOGRAP HICAL AREA. THEREFORE, REQUIREMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR DOING SUCH JOBS CANNOT BE DENIED. FURTHER, M.P. STATE AGRO STATE MA RKETING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VIDE THEIR LETTER D ATED 21.02.2014 PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 53, PRESCR IBES THE VARIOUS FORMALITIES AND SERVICES REQUIRED TO BE HAN DLED BY THE ASSESSEE OR REPRESENTATIVES OF THE AGENTS. THEREFOR E, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTI FIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAYM ENTS DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THIS VIEW IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT AS I.T.A.NO. 620/IND/2016 A.Y.2011-12 SHRI SATISH JAIN, INDORE. PAGE 13 OF 14 RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE O F THE ASSESSEE, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PURE PHARMA, (2005) 144 TAXMAN 364 (MP) IN PARA 3 & 4 HE LD AS UNDER :- 3, A FEW FACTS MATERIAL FOR DECIDING THE SAID APPEA L, IN SHORT, MAY BE MENTIONED AS UNDER : THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF PHARMACEUTICAL FORMULATIO NS. DURING THE PREVIOUS FINANCIAL YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HA D PAID TOTAL COMMISSION OF RS. 13,35,336/-. OUT OF THIS, A SUM OF RS. 10,24,290/- WAS PAID AS COMMISSION ON SALES MADE TO THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS AGENCIES AND A SUM OF RS. 3,11,0 46/- WAS PAID AS COMMISSION TO NON-GOVERNMENT PURCHASES. SINCE, A DOUBT WAS RAISED WITH REGARD TO THE PAYMEN TS MADE TO VARIOUS PARTIES AS COMMISSION, ENQUIRY WAS HELD. IT WAS FOUND THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE AS COMMI SSION TO VARIOUS PARTIES BY DEMAND DRAFTS, WHEREIN THE ID ENTITY OF EACH OF THE AGENTS WAS ALSO ESTABLISHED. IT HAS ALS O BEEN FOUND THAT THE COMMISSION WAS PAID EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES ONLY. 4. ALL THESE ARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND NO SUBSTANTIA L QUESTION OF LAW, AS IS REQUIRED TO BE FORMULATED FO R DECIDING THE APPEAL, ARISES IN THE SAME. THE TRIBUNAL HAS A LSO PLACED RELIANCE ON A JUDGMENT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT REPO RTED IN I.T.A.NO. 620/IND/2016 A.Y.2011-12 SHRI SATISH JAIN, INDORE. PAGE 14 OF 14 CIT VS. ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT CO. LTD., [ 1990] 182 ITR 510, WHEREIN THE DELHI HIGH COURT DEALING W ITH IDENTICAL QUESTION HAS ALREADY DECIDED THE MATTER A GAINST THE PRESENT APPELLANT-REVENUE. 11. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AN D RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN R ESPECT OF ABOVE THREE GROUNDS IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. THE ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE 16 TH JANUARY, 2017. SD/- (..) (D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (..) (O.P.MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER * / DATED : 16 TH JANUARY, 2017. CPU*