Myunghwa Automotive India Pvt Limited, Kancheepuram V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 658/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9707 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 31-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN C BHARATH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAGHUNATHANN SAMPATH
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Valuation report; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , & BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.658/MDS/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) M/S. MYUNGHWA AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT.LTD., 112, SINGADIVAKKAM VILLAGE, KANCHIPURAM DIST-631 560 VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-4(1), 430, MAIN BUILDING,CHENNAI-34. PAN: AAFCM2148H ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. RAGHUNATHANN SAMPATH,ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. ARUN C.BHARATH, CIT /DATE OF HEARING : 3 RD FEBRUARY, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 7 TH APRIL, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 30.0 1.2015 PASSED UNDER SECTION 144C(13) OF THE ACT PURSUANT T O THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED DRP AND LEARNED TRANSFER PRI CING OFFICER DATED 24.12.2014 & 23.01.2014 RESPECTIV ELY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED 14 GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL , HOWEVER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUE D THE 2 ITA NO.658 /MDS/2015 FOLLOWING GROUNDS AND CONCEDED THE OTHER GROUNDS RA ISED IN THE APPEAL NOT PRESSED:- I) THE LEARNED TPO HAS ERRED IN INCLUDING DYNAMITIC TECHNOLOGIES AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY WHICH HAS DIVERSIFIED PRESENCE AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PR OPER FACTS ABOUT THE COMPARABLE COMPANY. THE REVENUE HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE AUTOMOTIVE SEGMENT ALONE GIVEN IN THE FINANCIALS OF DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES. II) THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN PAS SING FINAL ORDER WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE GIVING EFFECT TO DRP ORDER PASSED BY TPO VIDE ORDER DATED 16.02.2015 WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. III) THE LEARNED TPO HAS ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE AS NIL WITH RESPECT TO OLD LCI LINE MACHINERY IMPORTED FROM AE AMOUNTING TO RS.27,283,983/-. IV) THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN TREA TING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS CLUB MEMBERSHIP FE E OF RS.7,27,980/- AS CAPITAL IN NATURE AND DISALLOWE D THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE. V) THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN NOT GRANTING SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSS/DEPRECIATION BROU GHT FORWARD FROM EARLIER YEARS. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS SUCH AS W ATER PUMP ASSEMBLY AND OIL PUMP ASSEMBLY FOR AUTOMOBILE (PASSENGER CARS). THE COMPANY MAINLY CATERS TO M/S. 3 ITA NO.658 /MDS/2015 HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LTD., AND ITS ANCILLARY UNITS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN ITS MANUFACTURING PROCESS IMPOR TS RAW MATERIALS, SEMI FINISHED GOODS AND FINISHED GOODS F ROM ITS AES ABROAD. GROUND NO.1: SELECTION OF COMPARABLE: 4. IN THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD PURCHASED RAW MATERIALS AND SEMI FINISH ED COMPONENTS AMOUNTING TO RS.11,58,63,846/-, FINISHED GOODS OF RS.3,25,97,645/- AND CAPITAL GOODS OF RS.3,90,25 ,525/- FROM ITS ASSOCIATE ENTERPRISES. IN ITS TRANSFER PRI CING COMPUTATION, THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED ITS OPERATING PR OFIT MARGIN AT 8.26% AND AFTER MAKING ADJUSTMENTS SHOWED ITS PROFIT MARGIN AT 14.46% DETAILS OF WHICH ARE VIVIDL Y STATED IN PARA 3.1.1 OF THE LEARNED DRPS ORDER. AS AGAINST THE ABOVE PROFIT MARGIN OF 14.4% THE ASSESSEE HAD SELECTED TH REE COMPARABLES WHOSE AVERAGE ADJUSTED OPERATING MARGIN WORKED OUT TO 3.39% AND THEREBY JUSTIFIED ITS INTER NATIONAL TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIALS, SEMI-FINI SHED GOODS AND FINISHED GOODS. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED TPO DID N OT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES TRANSFER PRICING COMPUTATION BECAUSE 4 ITA NO.658 /MDS/2015 THE LEARNED TPO OBSERVED THAT THE OPERATING PROFIT MARGIN (OPERATING PROFIT / SALES) OF THE ASSESSEE IS (-)7 .77% AS AGAINST THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF OPERATING PROFIT MA RGIN AT 8.26% AND ADJUSTED PROFIT MARGIN OF 14.46%. THEREA FTER, THE LEARNED TPO IN HIS COMPUTATION SELECTED TWO OTHER COMPARABLES OTHER THAN THE THREE COMPARABLES SELECT ED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DETERMINED THE ARITHMETIC MEAN OF THE OPERATING PROFIT MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLES AT 7.03% AS DETAILED HEREIN BELOW:- S.NO. NAME OF THE COMPARABLES PLI/(OP/OI) PLI (OP/OI) AFTER WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT 1. KALYANI FORGE LTD. 4.59% 7.19% 2. NANDINA IRON & STEELS LD. 2.65% 5.68% 3. PRICOL LTD. 5.62% 8.79% 4. DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 9.68% 8.40% 5. LUMAX AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS LTD. 3.21% 5.11% MEAN 5.74% 7.03% THE DETAILS OF THE ADDITIONAL TWO COMPARABLES SELEC TED BY THE LEARNED TPO ARE AS FOLLOWS:- NAME OF THE COMPARABLE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES 1. DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF HYDRAULIC PUMPING UNITS, 5 ITA NO.658 /MDS/2015 HYDRAULIC GEAR PUMPS IN CAST IRON & ALUMINUM, PRODUCT PROFILE & FUNCTIONS ARE SIMILAR AND HENCE TAKEN AS COMPARABLE 2. LUMAX AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS LTD. ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF VARIETY OF PLASTIC INJECTION & BLOW MOULDED COMPONENTS, OIL & FUEL FILTERS. 5. THE LEARNED ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE ARGUED BEF ORE US BY STATING THAT M/S. DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES CANN OT BE SELECTED AS COMPARABLES FOR COMPUTING THE ALP BECAU SE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- I) M/S. DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES HAS DIVERSIFIED PR ESENCE RANGING FROM AUTOMOTIVE TO AEROSPACE AND WIND FARM AND THEREFORE HAS VARIOUS SEGMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE TAK EN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE COMPUTING THE ALP. II) ONLY THE RELEVANT SEGMENT WHICH IS AKIN TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE COMPUTING THE AVERAGE PLI. III) THE OPERATING MARGIN OF THE AUTOMOTIVE SEGMEN T OF M/S. DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES WORKS OUT TO 5.53% ONLY , WHICH ALONE NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED TPO IN 6 ITA NO.658 /MDS/2015 HIS FINAL ORDER HAS COMBINED THE SEGMENTS VIZ., AUT OMOTIVE COMPONENTS AND HYDRAULIC SEGMENT AND PRECISION ENGINEERING SEGMENT OF M/S. DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES AND THUS ERRONEOUSLY WORKED OUT THE COMBINED OPERATIVE MARGIN AT 8.40%. IV) M/S. DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES LTDS., COMBINED SEGMENT CONSISTS OF AUTOMOTIVE SEGMENT, AERONAUTIC SEGMENT, HYDRAULIC AND SECURITY APPLICATIONS SEGMEN T. V) M/S. DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES LTD., HAS A LEADING PRIVATE R & D ORGANIZATION WITH NUMEROUS INVENTIONS AND PATTERNS TO ITS CREDIT UNLIKE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. VI) M/S. DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES EMPLOYS AROUND 50 SCIENTISTS AND 500 ENGINEERS WITH EXPERTISE IN MECH ANICAL ENGINEERING ADVANCE COMPUTED AIDED ENGINEERING, MAT ERIALS AND METHODOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, FLUID DYNAMICS AND DEFENSE RELATED AEROSPACE RESEARCH. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DO ES NOT HAVE SUCH INFRASTRUCTURE. VII) M/S. DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES IS VERTICALLY INT EGRATED WITH ITS OWN ALLOY MAKING AND CASTING CAPABILITIES AS WELL AS ITS OWN CAPTIVE WIND ENERGY SOURCES AND IS ONE OF T HE WORLD LARGEST HYDRAULIC GEAR PUMP MANUFACTURERS. 7 ITA NO.658 /MDS/2015 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE O THER HAND ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE . 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PER USED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, WE FIND M ERIT IN THE SAME BECAUSE COMPARABLE COMPANIES SHOULD HAVE IDENT ICAL OR SIMILAR ACTIVITIES AND CHARACTERISTIC OF SIMILA R QUALITIES, SIZE AND NATURE. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ONLY ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY OF AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS SUCH AS WATER PUMP ASSEMBLY AND OIL PUMP ASSEMBLY MEANT FOR PASSE NGER CARS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ONLY THOSE COMPANIES WHICH ARE OPERATING IN THE AUTOMOBILE SECTOR MANUFACTURIN G SIMILAR KIND OF PRODUCTS ARE TO BE TAKEN AS COMPARABLES. I N THE RELEVANT CASE BEFORE US, THE REVENUE HAS SELECTED M /S. DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES WHICH IS ENGAGED IN DIVERSIF IED ACTIVITIES SUCH AS, AUTOMOBILE SECTOR, AEROSPACE SE CTOR, WIND FORM SECTOR AND HYDRAULIC / SECURITY APPLICATIONS S ECTOR. IN SUCH SITUATION, THE CONSOLIDATED OPERATING PROFIT O F M/S. DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES CANNOT BE TAKEN AS COMPARABL ES 8 ITA NO.658 /MDS/2015 BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ONLY OPERATING IN T HE AUTOMOBILE SECTOR MANUFACTURING SPARE PARTS SUCH AS WATER PUMP ASSEMBLY AND OIL PUMP ASSEMBLY WHILE AS M/S. DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES HAS VARIOUS OTHER SEGMENTS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ONLY THAT SEGMENT WHICH RELATES TO AUTOMOBILE SECTOR OF M/S. DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES SHOULD BE TAKEN AS COMPARABL ES AT THE MOST OR SOME OTHER SUITABLE COMPARABLE COMPANIE S MAY BE TAKEN AS COMPARABLES. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, WE REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN ORDER TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED TPO AND FU RTHER DIRECT THE LEARNED TPO TO EITHER SELECT THE AUTOMOBILE SEG MENT OF M/S. DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES AS COMPARABLES OR SELEC T SOME OTHER SUITABLE COMPARABLE COMPANY WHOSE ACTIVITIES AND CHARACTERISTICS ARE IDENTICAL AND SIMILAR TO THAT O F THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THEREAFTER DETERMINE THE ALP W ITH REGARD TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. IT IS ORDE RED ACCORDINGLY. GROUND NO.2 FINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE OR DER PASSED 9 ITA NO.658 /MDS/2015 BY THE TPO DATED 16.02.2015 PURSUANT TO THE ORDER O F THE LEARNED DRP: 8. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO T TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN HIS FINAL ORDER; THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE LEARNED TPO DATED 16.02.2015 CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE LEARNED DRP. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS:- I) THE TPO ERRED IN COMPUTING THE ADJUSTMENT WITH RESPECT TO AE PURCHASES IN THE GIVING EFFECT ORDER TO DRP DIRECTION. II) THE TPO THOUGH CONSIDERED EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION AS PART OF OPM CALCULATION IN LINE WITH DRP DIRECTION, BUT ERRONEOUSLY COMPUTED THE ADDITION AS RS.16,141,649/ - INSTEAD OF RS.11,406,478/- DIRECTION. III) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OMITTED TO CONSIDER THE REVISED ADDITION OF AE PURCHASES COMPUTED BY TPO AMOUNTING TO RS.16,141,649/- IN HIS FINAL ORDER. 10 ITA NO.658 /MDS/2015 9. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NO T CONTROVERT TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AUTHOR IZED REPRESENTATIVE. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. CONSIDER ING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESE NTATIVE, WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LEARNED A SSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTIONS TO CONSIDER THE ABOVE SUBMI SSION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND MODIFY HI S ORDER AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ACCORDANCE W ITH LAW AND MERIT. GROUND NO.3 - A RMS LENGTH PRICE WITH RESPECT TO OLD LCI LINE MACHINERY IMPORTED FROM AE AMOUNTING TO RS.27,283,983/-. 11. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE RELEVANT FINAN CIAL YEAR IMPORTED LCI MACHINERY FROM ITS AE FOR RS. 2,72,83,983/-. IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THE ALP OF THE T RANSACTION, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FURNISHED VALUATION REPORT FRO M AN APPROVED ENGINEER JUSTIFYING THE PURCHASE PRICE OF LCI MACHINERY. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED TPO DID NOT ACCEPT THE 11 ITA NO.658 /MDS/2015 CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE COULD ALSO NOT BE FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF YEAR OF PURCHASE OF THE MA CHINERY BY THE ASSESSEES AE, ITS COST, THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIA TION CLAIMED BY THE AE ETC.,. SINCE THE LEARNED TPO COUL D NOT OBTAIN ANY OTHER INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO THE PU RCHASE OF MACHINERY OTHER THAN THE VALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE DETERMINED THE ALP WITH RESPECT TO THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE MACHINERY FROM THE AE AS NIL AND THEREBY PROPOSED AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF RS.2,72,83 ,983/-. THE LEARNED TPO RELIED IN THE DECISION OF BANGALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF INTEL ASIA ELECTRONIC P VT.LTD. VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.131/BANG/2010 WHILE ARRIVING AT HIS DECISION. 12. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ARGUED BE FORE US STATING THAT THE VALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE DETERMINING THE ALP IN RE GARD TO THE PURCHASE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET BY THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY FROM ITS AE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IF THE REVENUE WA S NOT CONVINCED WITH THE VALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY TH E ASSESSEE THEN THE MATTER MAY BE REFERRED TO DVO FOR VERIFICATION AND THEREAFTER DECIDED THE ISSUE ON ME RITS. THE 12 ITA NO.658 /MDS/2015 LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT HAVE AN Y OBJECTION FOR THE MATTER TO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED TPO FOR OBTAINING REPORT FROM THE DVO IN RE GARD TO THE VALUATION OF THE MACHINERY. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF TH E LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL REFER THE CASE TO THE L EARNED TPO FOR OBTAINING THE VALUATION REPORT FROM THE LEA RNED DVO AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW & MERIT. GROUND NO.4 CLUB MEMBERSHIP FEE OF RS.7,27,980/-: 13. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED TH E MEMBERSHIP FEE OF RS.7,27,980/- PAID BY THE ASSESSE E COMPANY TO TAMILNADU GOLF FEDERATION AS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION BECAUSE HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SUCH PAYM ENTS ARE IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED IN THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ENGINEERS LTD. REPORTED IN 239 ITR 237. THE LE ARNED DRP ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE MEMBERSHIP FEE PAID IS F OR DERIVING BENEFIT FOR A LONG PERIOD AND HENCE WILL F ALL IN THE CAPITAL FIELD AND THEREFORE SUCH EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE 13 ITA NO.658 /MDS/2015 CONSIDERED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. FOR THE ABOVE ST ATED REASONS, THE LEARNED DRP CONFIRMED THE DRAFT ASSESS MENT ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. WE DO NOT FIND MERIT IN THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE. IT APPE ARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TOWARDS CORPORATE MEMBERSHIP FEES TO THE TAMILNADU GOLD FEDERATION. SUCH MEMBERSHIP IS CONFE RRED FOR A STIPULATED PERIOD OF TIME. IN THAT EVENT, THE ONETIME PAYMENT OF FEES PAID FOR ENJOYING THE BENEFIT OF TH E CLUB FOR A STIPULATED PERIOD HAS TO BE APPORTIONED EVENLY DURI NG SUCH PERIOD AND ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION ACCORDINGLY. HOWEVE R IF SUCH AMOUNT DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY INFLUENCE THE PR OFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, FOLLOWING THE ACCOU NTING POLICY OF MATERIALITY ACCEPTED BY ACCOUNTING STAN DARD-1, SUCH CORPORATE MEMBERSHIP FEES MAY BE WRITTEN OFF I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVAN T ASSESSMENT YEAR AND ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US WE DO NOT HAVE THE ENTIRE FA CTS BEFORE US WE REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION. HE SHALL ALSO T AKE NOTE OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATION WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE. 14 ITA NO.658 /MDS/2015 GROUND NO.5 - SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSS/DEPRECIATION BROUGHT FORWARD FROM EARLIER YEARS. 14. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER H AS OMITTED TO GRANT THE BENEFIT OF SET OFF OF BUSINES S LOSS/DEPRECIATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 F OR RS.1,78,04,366/-. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENT ATIVE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE US THE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 TO JUSTIFY H IS STAND. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OPINED THAT D UE TO OVERSIGHT OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER SUCH OMI SSION MIGHT HAVE OCCURRED. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, WE HE REBY REMIT THIS ISSUE ALSO TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED AS SESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DEC IDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERIT. 15. WE FURTHER MAKE IT CLEAR THAT ALL THE GROUNDS R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED HEREIN ABOVE FOR ADJUDICATION AND ALL OT HER GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL WERE NOT PRESSED FOR A RGUMENT. 15 ITA NO.658 /MDS/2015 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREIN ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 7 TH APRIL, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 7 TH APRIL, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /G