M/s. ACIT CEN CIR-21, MUMBAI V. THE KOPRAN LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 67/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3571 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-01-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAILESH S SAHA
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Capital receipt; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 37(1)

Judgement Text

I.T.A NO.67/ MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BENCH, MUMBAI. CORAM : D.MANMOHAN, V.P. AND PRAMOD KUMAR, AM I.T.A NOS.67 & 68/ MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04 & 2004-05 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENT.CIR.21 .. APPELLANT MUMBAI. VS M/S. KOPRAN LTD. ,. RESPONDEN T 1076, PARIJAT HOUSE, DR E MOSES ROAD, WORLI,MUMBAI. 400 018 PA NO.AAACK 3202 D APPEARANCES: SHRI S.B.SINGH, FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI SHAILESH S SAHA, FOR THE RESPONDENT O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR: 1. BY WAY OF THESE APPEALS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALLED INTO QUESTION CORRECTNESS OF CIT(A)S ORDERS DATED 3 RD OCTOBER, 2008 & 6 TH OCTOBER, 2008, DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 16,19,87,818/- AND RS 2,91,32,63 8/- RELATING TO DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF PROMOTION OF NEW PRODUCTS /BRANDS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05. AS THE COMMON ISSUE IS IN VOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THEY ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMM ON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. I.T.A NO.67/ MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 2 2. THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2003-04 ARE LIKE THIS. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEFERRED REVENUE EXPE NDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS 16,19,87,818/- BUT REDUCED THE SAME FROM TOTAL INCO ME IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT BY WAY OF NOTE IN THE COM PUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLARIFIED THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HA S INCURRED EXPENSES ON PROMOTION OF NEW PRODUCTS AND BRANDS AMOUNTING TO RS 13,27,81 ,649/- (KL) AND RS 2,92,06,169/- (KPL), WHICH HAD TREATED AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND AMORTIZED FOR A PERIOD OF SIX YEARS BUT WHILE COMPUTING THE TAXABLE INCOME, THESE EXPENSES ARE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION AS THESE EXPENSES ARE REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN NATURE. ON THESE FACTS, THE AO REQU IRED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EXPENSES SHOWN AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE ARE INCURRED FOR THE PROMOTION OF NEW PRODUCTS/BRANDS, ADVERTISING RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW PRO DUCTS AND THAT THESE EXPENSES MAINLY COMPRISED OF COST OF RAW MATERIAL, COST OF A DVERTISING AND EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE PROMOTION OF THE PRODUCTS. IT WAS ALSO SUB MITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSISTENT ACCOUNTING POLICY, T HESE EXPENSES ARE SHOWN AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND SAME ARE FULLY DED UCTIBLE IN COMPUTATION OF BUSINESS INCOME BECAUSE THE EXPENDITURES ARE REVENU E IN NATURE AND THERE IS NO BAR ON CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES MERELY BECAUSE TH ESE ARE SHOWN AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THESE SUBMISSIONS, HOWEVER, DID NOT IMPRESS THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A CONTRADICTORY STAND WITH REGARD TO THE DEFERRED REV ENUE EXPENDITURE. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE FOR PROMOTION OF NEW PRODUCTS, THE ASSESSEE HAS TREATED THE SALE OF ITS BRAND I.E. ATEN FOR RS 70 CRORES AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND, ACCORDINGLY, OFFERED TO TAX IN A.Y. 2002-03. THE AO WAS THUS OF THE VIEW THAT THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESS EE IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND WOULD RESULT DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS AND DISTORTION FOR LIABILITY FOR TAX. IT WAS IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE AO DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED I.T.A NO.67/ MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 3 BY THE STAND SO TAKEN BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE CARRI ED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). 3. THE CIT (A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT WHETHER THE REV ENUE EXPENDITURE IS TO BE ALLOCATED OVER MORE THAN ONE YEAR AND IF SO IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES, HAS BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. BHOR INDUSTRIES LTD (180 CTR 508)(BOM), WHEREIN, THEIR LORDSHIPS HA VE HELD THAT THE REVENUE EXPENDITURE CAN BE SPREAD OVER A PERIOD FOR THE PUR POSE OF ITS ALLOWANCE ONLY IF THERE IS A CORRESPONDING EXISTENCE OF STREAM OF INCOME OV ER THE SAID PERIOD. THE CIT (A) FURTHER HELD THAT THE ACCOUNTING TREATMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE EXPEN DITURE IS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. THE CIT (A) REFERRED TO THE HONBLE SUP REME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ASHOK LEYLAND LTD (86 ITR 549),WHEREIN, I T IS HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF REVENUE NATURE IS ALLOWABLE IN FULL IN THE COMPUTAT ION OF THE PROFITS IN THE YEAR, IN WHICH, LIABILITY HAS CRYSTALLIZED. ON THE BASIS O F THIS REASONING AND AFTER ELABORATE ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) DELE TED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AND HELD THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENSES EVEN THOUGH THESE ARE SHOWN AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE CONSTITUTE ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTION. THE A SSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVING PE RUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CONC LUSIONS ARRIVED BY THE CIT (A) DO NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. A CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL (WHICH HAD ONE OF US, I.E. THE LEARNED VICE PRESIDENT, IN ITS CORAM) IN THE CASE OF AMAR RAJA BATTERIES LTD V ACIT (91 ITD 280)(HYD) AFTER AN ELABORATE ANALYSI S OF THE RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES, INTER ALIA, CONCLUDED AS FOLLOWS: 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS IN THE REVENUE FIELD. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE CONSIDERED IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE IN THIS YEAR ITSEL F, EVEN THOUGH IT HAD WRITTEN OFF THIS EXPENDITURE IN THE BOOKS OVER A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS . THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN MADRAS INDUSTRIAL INVESTMEN T CORPN. (SUPRA) HELD AS FOLLOWS- I.T.A NO.67/ MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 4 ...SECTION 37(1) FURTHER REQUIRES THAT THE EXPENDI TURE SHOULD NOT BE OF A CAPITAL NATURE. THE QUESTION WHETHER A PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE IS REVENU E EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS MUST BE DETERMINED ON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, AND BY THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF COMMERCIAL TRADING . THE QUESTION MUST BE VIEWED IN THE LARGER CONTEXT OF BUSINESS NECESSITY OR EXPEDIENCY. IF THE OUTGOING OR EXPENDITURE IS SO RELATED TO THE CARRYING ON, OR CONDUCT OF THE BUSINE SS, THAT IT MAY BE REGARDED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PROFIT-MAKING PROCESS AND NOT FOR ACQUI SITION OF AN ASSET OR A RIGHT OF A PERMANENT CHARACTER, THE POSSESSION OF WHICH IS A C ONDITION OF THE CARRYING ON OF THE BUSINESS, THE EXPENDITURE MAY BE REGARDED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. ANY LIABILITY INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS OF OBTAINING A LOAN WOULD BE REVENUE EXPENDITURE. ORDINARILY, REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHICH IS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVEL Y FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS MUST BE ALLOWED IN ITS ENTIRETY IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS INCURRED. IT CANNOT BE SPREAD OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN IT OFF IN HIS BOOKS, OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS. HOWEVER, THE FACTS MAY JUSTIFY AN ASSESSEE WHO HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE IN A PARTICULAR YEAR TO SPREAD AND CLAIM IT OVER A PERIOD OF ENSUING YEARS. IN FACT, ALLOWING THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE IN ONE YEAR MIGHT GIVE A VERY DISTORTED PICTURE OF THE PROFITS OF A PARTICULAR YEAR. ISSUING DEBENTURES IS AN INSTANCE WHERE, ALTHOUGH THE ASSES SEE HAS INCURRED THE LIABILITY TO PAY THE DISCOUNT IN THE YEAR OF ISSUE OF DEBENTURE, THE PAY MENT IS TO SECURE A BENEFIT OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS. THERE IS A CONTINUING BENEFIT TO THE BUSINE SS OF THE COMPANY OVER THE ENTIRE PERIOD. THE LIABILITY SHOULD, THEREFORE, BE SPREAD OVER THE PERIOD OF DEBENTURES.FROM THIS JUDGMENT, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITT EN OFF THE EXPENDITURE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OVER A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS, IT MUST BE ALLO WED IN ITS ENTIRETY IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS INCURRED, IF IT IS REVENUE EXPENDITURE, AND IF IT IS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OBSER VED THAT IN CERTAIN CASES, THE FACTS MAY JUSTIFY THE ASSESSEE TO SPREAD OVER AND CLAIM T HE EXPENDITURE OVER A PERIOD OF ENSUING YEARS. 11. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD LAUNCHED A NEW P RODUCT AND INCURRED HEAVY ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE. THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE SECURED BENEFIT BY INCURRING THIS EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE REASONABLY ESTIM ATED. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE NEW PRODUCT LAUNCHED MAY FAIL TO TAKE OFF IN THE YE AR OF LAUNCH ITSELF MAY HAVE A LONG LIFE AS A PRODUCT. THERE IS NO WAY IN WHICH IT CAN DEFINITE LY BE ESTIMATED THAT THE BENEFIT OF THE EXPENDITURE WOULD LAST FOR A PARTICULAR PERIOD OF T IME, AND ON THIS COUNT, WE AGREE WITH THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. RELIANCE PLACED BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF SHREYAS SHIPPING LTD. (SUPRA) DOES NOT COME TO ITS RESUCE, FOR IN THAT CASE, DRY DOCK AND SPECIAL SURVEY EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY THE AS SESSEE AND THESE EXPENSES HAVE TO BE INCURRED STATUTORILY TWICE OVER A PERIOD OF FIVE YE ARS. THAT DRY DOCKING IN THE CASE OF SHIPS IS MANDATORY. THE BENEFIT OF THE EXPENDITURE CAN BE REAS ONABLY ESTIMATED OVER A PERIOD OF 2 YEARS. MOREOVER, THERE WAS A TRADE PRACTICE IN THAT CASE AND THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWED THAT TRADE PRACTICE AND WROTE OFF THAT EXPENDITURE OVER A PERI OD OF 2 YEARS. IT IS NOT THE CASE HERE, AS IT IS NOT A MANDATORY EXPENDITURE, NOR CAN THE PERI OD FOR WHICH THE BENEFIT OF THE EXPENDITURE CAN BE DERIVED BE ESTIMATED WITH A LEAST REASONABLE ACCURACY. THE BOMBAY BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL DISTINGUISHED THE JUDGMENT OF ITS JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. CHOWGULE & CO. (P.) LTD. [1995] 214 ITR 5 23 (BOM.) HOLDING THAT IN THAT CASE IT WAS NOT A CASE OF CURRENT REPAIRS AND WAS ALSO NOT A CA SE WHICH DID NOT BRING INTO EXISTENCE OR OBTAIN A NEW OR DIFFERENT ADVANTAGE. THEREFORE, THIS DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHREYAS SHIPPING LTD. (SUPRA ) IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. COMING TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF MADRAS IN DUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPN. LTD. (SUPRA), IT WAS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID UPFRONT D ISCOUNT FOR THE DEBENTURES ISSUED. THE I.T.A NO.67/ MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 5 LUMP SUM PAYMENT OF DISCOUNT WHICH IS AN UPFRONT, O NE TIME PAYMENT, SECURED BENEFIT TO THAT ASSESSEE OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS. IN FACT THE UP FRONT PAYMENT IS CALCULATED BY DISCOUNTING THE FUTURE INSTALMENTS OF INTEREST PAYA BLE AND IT IS LIKE PREPAID INTEREST. THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE SECURED BENEFIT IS SP ECIFIED. THAT ASSESSEE BY MAKING ONE TIME PAYMENT HAD AVOIDED PAYING INTEREST ON DEBENTURES IN EACH OF THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. THE ANNUAL COMPULSORILY INCURABLE EXPENDITURE ON INTERES T HAS BEEN DISCOUNTED AND PAID UPFRONT AS A ONE TIME PAYMENT. IN FACT THE ENTIRE E XPENDITURE OF UPFRONT PAYMENT IN THAT CASE DOES NOT PERTAIN TO ONE YEAR. INTEREST IS A YE ARLY COMMITMENT. THUS ON FACTS THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT INTEREST OF THAT PARTICULAR YEAR ONLY IS TO BE ALLOWED. THUS, THIS DECISION IS ALSO DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF T HE PRESENT CASE. THUS, BOTH IN THE CASE OF SHREYAS SHIPPING LTD. (SUPRA) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND IN THE CASE OF MADRAS INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPN. LTD. (SUPRA) BEFORE THE HONBLE SUP REME COURT, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE SECURED THE BENEFIT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY S PECIFIED EITHER BY WAY OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS OR BY WAY OF STATUTORY REQUIREMENT. THER E IS NO SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE IN THIS CASE. THE MATCHING CONCEPT, WHICH IS HEAVILY RELIED UPON IN BOTH THE ABOVE CASES, FAILS IN THIS CASE. THE NUMBER OF YEARS FOR WHICH THE BENEFIT CAN BE SAI D TO HAVE BEEN DERIVED CANNOT BE ESTIMATED IN THIS CASE. DEFERMENT IS BASED ON THE MATCHING CONCEPT, THAT IS MATCHING COSTS WITH REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO CLAIM EXP ENSES YEAR-WISE TO THE EXTENT OF INCOME, WHICH CAN BE SAID TO HAVE ARISEN FROM SUCH EXPENSES. THE INCOME RELATABLE TO THAT EXPENDITURE SHOULD ARISE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND WHEN A NEXUS CAN BE DEFINITELY FOUND BETWEEN BOTH INCOME AND EXPENDITURE, THE MATCHING CON CEPT COMES INTO PLAY. THE RATIO OF THE ORDER OF THE MUMBAI BENCH CANNOT BE UNIVERSALLY A PPLIED AND AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, HAS TO BE RESTRICTED TO THE PARTICUL AR FACTS OF THAT CASE. THE DECISIONS RELIED BY REVENUE HAVE LIMITED APPLICATION AND CAN BE INVOK ED WHEN EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED IN LUMP SUM, ESSENTIALLY TO GET RID OF FUTURE ANNUAL E XPENDITURE WHICH IS NECESSARILY TO BE INCURRED TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS. THIS IS NOT A CAS E WHERE ANNUAL FUTURE MANDATORY EXPENDITURE IS DONE AWAY WITH BY A LUMP SUM UPFRONT EXPENDITURE. 12. AS FAR AS THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AR E CONCERNED, IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THEY DO NOT CLINCH THE ISSUE EITHER WAY, AND THEY DO NOT DE TERMINE THE ALLOWABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE EXPENDITURE. THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF KEDARNATH JUTE MFG. CO. LTD. V. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 AND IN THE CASE OF CIT V. INDIAN DISCOUNTS CO. LTD . [1970] 75 ITR 191 (SC) ARE CLEAR ON THE ISSUE. IF THE ARGUMENT OF TH E LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT ARE SACROSCENT AND HAVE TO BE ACCEPTED IS TO BE VALID, THEN IN THE CASE OF DEPREC IATION ALSO, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE DISALLOWED, AS THE DEPRECIATION DEPICTED IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IS CLAIMED AND ALLOWED, WHILE COMPUTING THE IN COME UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NECESSARILY TO BE REJECTED. WE AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HOLD THAT THE ENTIRE ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE FOR PRODUCT LAUNCHING IS TO BE ALLOWED IN THIS YEAR. 5. WE ARE IN CONSIDERED AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW SO EXPRESSED BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH AND THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE CIT (A ) IS ALSO IN HARMONY WITH THE ABOVE VIEWS SO EXPRESSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH. AS REGARDS ASSESSING OFFICERS OBSERVATIONS REGARDING CONTRADICTION IN STAND OF TH E ASSESSEE BY TREATING THE SALE PROCEEDS OF A BRAND AS A CAPITAL RECEIPT, AND EXPEN DITURE TO BUILD THAT BRAND AS A I.T.A NO.67/ MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 6 REVENUE EXPENDITURE, WE HAVE NOTED THAT THIS OBSERV ATION PROCEEDS ON THE FALLACIOUS ASSUMPTION THAT THE EXPENSES ARE RELATED TO ACQUISI TION OF A BRAND WHEREAS THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION ARE ADMITTEDLY REVENUE EXPE NDITURE IN NATURE WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BRAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. ALL OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE BEEN COMPREHENSIVELY DEALT W ITH IN THE COORDINATE BENCHS ORDER, AND WE ADOPT THE REASONING THEREIN. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE UPHOLD AND AFFIRM THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT (A) AN D DECLINE TO INTERFERE. 6. THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2003-04 ARE SAME IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. IN LINE WITH OUR OBSERVAT IONS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, WE ALSO DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDE R OF THE CIT (A). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH DECEMBER, 2010 SD/- (D.MANMOHAN) (VICE PRESIDENT) SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MUMBAI, DATED 20 TH DECEMBER, 2010 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)IV,, MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR-II , MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH A, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI