THE ACIT, Guntur V. JOCIL LIMITED, Guntur

ITA 68/VIZ/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8931 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MURTHY NAIK
• Keywords: Business income; Period of limitation
• Section: 142(1); 147; 148; 139

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.68 TO 71/VIZAG/2016 M/S. JOCIL LIMITED, DOKIPARRU 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . , $ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NOS.68 TO 71/VIZAG/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06, 2006-07, 2010-11 & 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY) ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), GUNTUR M/S. J OCIL LIMITED, DOKIPARRU, GUNTUR DIST. [PAN NO. AAACJ5606J ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI MURTHY NAIK, DR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI C. SUBRAHMANYAM, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 24.04.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.04.2017 / O R D E R PER SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST SEPARATE, BUT IDENTICAL ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-1, GUN TUR DATED 28.8.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2006-07, 2010-11 & 2011-12. SINCE, THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND ISSUES ARE COMMON, THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD ITA NOS.68 TO 71/VIZAG/2016 M/S. JOCIL LIMITED, DOKIPARRU 2 TOGETHER AND DISPOSED-OFF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORD ER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE EXTRACTED FROM ITA NO.68/VIZAG/2016 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY E NGAGED IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF MANUFACTURE OF FATTY ACIDS, ST EARIC ACID, FLAKES, SOAP NOODLES, TOILET SOAPS, REFINED GLYCERIN, INDUSTRIAL OXYGEN AND BIO MASS POWER GENERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETUR N OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ON 27.10.2012 DECLARING INC OME AT ` 11,35,00,240/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 1 43(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS 'THE AC T') ON 14.12.2007 DETERMINING THE TAXABLE INCOME AT ` 11,96,53,600/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE HAS BEEN RE-OPENED BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 1 48 OF THE ACT, FOR THE REASON THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD BE EN ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT ON VERIFICATION OF RECORDS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE FINANC IAL YEAR 2004-05 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 TRANSFERRED AN AMOUNT OF ` 76,95,720/- TO THE CONTINGENT SALES ACCOUNT FROM TH E TOTAL SALES REDUCING THE DEBTORS TO THAT EFFECT IN THE BALANCE SHEET, WITH A SINGLE ENTRY ON 31.3.2005, WITH A NARRATION THAT THE INCOM E WAS NOT RECOGNISED AS INCOME. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE AC T, THE ASSESSEE FILED A ITA NOS.68 TO 71/VIZAG/2016 M/S. JOCIL LIMITED, DOKIPARRU 3 LETTER ON 6.3.2012 AND REQUESTED TO TREAT THE RETUR N FILED U/S 139 OF THE ACT ON 27.10.2012 SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS RETURN FIL ED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT. 3. THE CASE HAS BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ACCO RDINGLY, NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED. IN RES PONSE TO THE NOTICES, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEA RED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURNISHED THE INFORMATION AS CALLED FOR. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. ISSUED A SHOW CAUS E NOTICE AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT OF ` 76,95,720/- TRANSFERRED TO CONTINGENT SALES ACCOUNT, SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS SALES AND BROUGHT TO TAX. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTI CE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS LETTER DATED 20.7.2012 AND EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT TRANSFERRED TO CONTINGENT SALES IS ON ACCOUNT OF NO N-REALISATION OF SALE PRICE BILLED TO THE CUSTOMERS BECAUSE OF PENDING DI SPUTES. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPANY HAS BILLED POWER SOLD TO M/S. APTRANSCO AS PER THE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT, WHER EAS M/S. APTRANSCO HAS PAID THE AMOUNT AS PER THE ORDERS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT, THEREFORE, THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT HAS BE EN KEPT AS CONTINGENT SALES AS THE REVENUE DID NOT CRYSTALISED AS ON THE DATE OF RECOGNITION OF REVENUE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. T HE A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE ITA NOS.68 TO 71/VIZAG/2016 M/S. JOCIL LIMITED, DOKIPARRU 4 HAS ESTABLISHED RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE BILLED AMOUNT FROM APTRANSCO BY VIRTUE OF GOVERNMENT ORDERS, THOUGH THE DISPUTE IS PENDING BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY. THIS CLEARLY E STABLISHES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE BILLE D AMOUNT. THE A.O. FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE BILLS WERE RAISED WITH A PRICE FIXED AS PER POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH 5% ESCALATION TOWARDS THE POWER SUPPLY TO APTRANSCO, BUT THE REVENUE IS RECOGNISED AS PER THE ORDERS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THE MERE FACT THAT THE IS SUE IS PENDING BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES DOES NOT TAKE AWAY THE RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE TO GET THE ESCALATED SALE PRICE FROM THE A PTRANSCO, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE CONDUCT OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SALE BILL WITH ESCALATED SALE PRICE, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT TAK E A CONTRARY VIEW WHEN IT COMES TO RECOGNITION OF REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, M ADE ADDITIONS OF ` 76,95,720/- TO THE TAXABLE INCOME. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE A SSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IT IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTIN G FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECOGNITION OF REVENUE AND RECOGNISED THE REVENUE A S AND WHEN REVENUE CRYSTALISED AS ON THE DATE OF BALANCE SHEET DATE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT TRANSFERRED TO CO NTINGENT SALES ITA NOS.68 TO 71/VIZAG/2016 M/S. JOCIL LIMITED, DOKIPARRU 5 REPRESENTS DIFFERENTIAL SALE PRICE CLAIMED FROM M/S . APTRANSCO, WHICH IS PENDING BECAUSE OF DISPUTE BETWEEN THE COMPANY A ND M/S. APTRANSCO, WITH REGARD TO SELLING PRICE OF POWER. UNLESS THE PRICE PAYABLE FOR POWER IS FINALIZED BY THE STATE GOVERNM ENT OR APPELLATE AUTHORITIES, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT RECOGNIZE THE REVE NUE. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE RAISED SALES BILLS AS PER THE ORIGINAL POW ER PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE CONTINUES TO RECEIVE AMOUNT FROM THE CUSTOMER AS PER THE ORDERS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT, THEREFORE, THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT HAS BEEN KEPT UNDER CONTINGENT SA LES WHICH CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS REVENUE FOR THE PERIOD. THE CIT(A ) AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DELETED AD DITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. THE CIT(A), REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UCO BANK VS. CIT 240 ITR 555, OBSERVED THAT THE CONCEPT OF REAL INCOME IS CERTAINLY APPLICABLE IN THE JUDGI NG WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN INCOME OR NOT. WHETHER THE INCOME HAS REALLY A CCRUED OR ARISEN TO THE ASSESSEE MUST BE IN THE LIGHT OF THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION. THE TAX MUST BE ON REAL INCOME BUT NOT ON THE NOTIONAL INCO ME. MERE RAISING OF INVOICE TOWARDS DISPUTED SALE PRICE DOES NOT CREATE UNDISPUTABLE RIGHT TO THE ASSESSEE, UNLESS RECEIPT OF THE PRICE IS CERTAI N AND UNDISPUTED AS ON THE DATE OF INVOICE. AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT(A) ORDER , THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NOS.68 TO 71/VIZAG/2016 M/S. JOCIL LIMITED, DOKIPARRU 6 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER ON THE FACTS AN D IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE PENDING DISPUTED SALE PRICE, KEPT IN CONTINGENT SALES ACCOUNT IS ACCRUES TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. THE LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2009-10 IN ITA NO.696/VIZAG/2013 DATED 27.5.2016, WHEREIN T HE COORDINATE BENCH HAS OBSERVED THAT THE IMPUGNED CONTINGENT SAL E ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENTIAL SALE PRICE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, WH ICH WAS PENDING BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY IS NO T ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS REVENUE FOR THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR . WE FIND THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, AFTER CONSIDERING THE RAT IO OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF GODARA ELECTRICITY CO MPANY LIMITED VS. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 746 AND ALSO ITAT, HYDERABAD BEN CH DECISION IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SRI BALAJI BIO-MASS PRIVATE LIMITE D IN ITA NO.1748/HYD/2008, HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RI GHTLY TREATED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SALE PRICE CLAIMED AND PRICE PAI D BY THE APTRANSCO AS CONTINGENT SALES, WHICH IS NOT ACCRUED TO THE AS SESSEE FOR THE ITA NOS.68 TO 71/VIZAG/2016 M/S. JOCIL LIMITED, DOKIPARRU 7 RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF T HE ORDER IS EXTRACTED BELOW: 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MAT ERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE WHICH LEADS TO THE IMPUGNED ADDI TION ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO A POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT (PPA) WITH APTRANSCO FOR SUPPLY OF POWER. AS PER THE SAID AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE H AS AGREED TO SELL THE POWER AT A UNIT PRICE OF RS.2.25 PER UNIT WITH A 5% ESCALATION PER ANNUM UP TO 31.3.2004, WITH A BASE YEAR OF 1994-95. ACCORDIN GLY, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND OTHER NON CONVENTIONAL ENERGY PRODUCERS HAVE RECEIVED A CONSIDERATION OF RS.3.48 PER UNIT UP TO THE FINANCI AL YEAR ENDING 31.3.2004. FURTHER, AS PER THE SAID AGREEMENT AFTER 1.4.2004, THE APERC I.E. ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION IS EMPOWE RED TO FIX THE PURCHASE PRICE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APERC HAS FIXED THE PURCHA SE PRICE OF RS.2.76 PER UNIT AS AGAINST THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF RS.3.48 PER UNIT. THEREFORE, THE BIO MASS ENERGY DEVELOPERS ASSOCIATION (BEDA) HAS APPRO ACHED THE A.P. HIGH COURT TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE. THE A.P. HIGH COURT VI DE ITS INTERIM ORDER DATED 20.8.2004 DIRECTED THE APTRANSCO TO PAY A PRICE FIX ED BY THE APERC TOGETHER WITH 50% OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRICE F IXED BY APERC AND PRICE AS PER ORIGINAL PPA. FURTHER, SUBSEQUENT TO THE SE TTING UP OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY (ATE), THE HIGH COURT DIRE CTED THE BEDA TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE ATE. THE ATE HAS ALLOWED THE APPE AL FILED BY THE BEDA. BUT, THE APERC AND APTRANSCO HAVE APPEALED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ATE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, WHICH HAS REMANDE D THE CASE BACK TO THE APERC WITH A DIRECTION TO RECONSIDER THE CLAIM OF P OWER GENERATORS WHILE FIXING THE PRICE. THE APERC, AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT HAVE HEARD THE MATTER AND COULD NOT REACH A CONSCIOUS DE CISION BY THE 3 MEMBER BENCH OF APERC. HENCE, THE BEDA HAS FILED A FRESH APPEAL BEFORE THE ATE FOR DETERMINATION OF THE PRICE TO BE FIXED FOR SUPPLY O F POWER WHICH IS PENDING FOR ADJUDICATION. MEANWHILE, THE A.P. STATE GOVERNMENT HAS ISSUED AN ORDER DATED 12.11.2008 AND HAS DIRECTED APTRANSCO FOR PAY MENT OF AN ADHOC PRICE OF RS.3.79 PER UNIT FOR A PERIOD OF 1 YEAR OR TILL APERC FINALISES THE ISSUE AND DETERMINED THE TARIFF. IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE A SSESSEE COMPANY HAS CONTINUED TO RAISE THE SALE BILL AS PER THE ORIGINA L PPA WITH 5% ESCALATION PER YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS RAISED SALE BILL FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR A PRICE OF RS.4.23 PER UNIT UP TO 20.4.2008 AND RS.4.44 PER UNIT FROM 20.4.2008 TO TILL THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 31.3.2009. HOWEVER, WHILE RECOGNIZING THE REVENUE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECOGNIZED THE SALES REVENUE AS PER TH E RATE FIXED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT TILL FURTHER ORDERS FROM THE ATE AND DIS CLOSED THE REASONS FOR NOT RECOGNIZING THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF SALES AND TR EATING IT AS CONTINGENT SALES IN THE NOTES APPENDED TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. 11. THE A.O. MADE ADDITION TO CONTINGENT SALES FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTINUED TO RAISE BILL FOR HIGHER PRI CE, BUT NOT RECOGNIZED THE REVENUE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE A.O. WAS OF T HE OPINION THAT THE ITA NOS.68 TO 71/VIZAG/2016 M/S. JOCIL LIMITED, DOKIPARRU 8 ASSESSEE HAS ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE SAID AMO UNT IN VIEW OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND ALSO THE F ACT THAT THE MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE THE ATE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE RE QUIRED TO RECOGNIZE THE SAID DISPUTED SALE AMOUNT FOR THE RELEVANT FINANCIA L PERIOD. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE MATTER IS PENDING FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES, THERE IS NO GUARA NTEE THAT THE SAID AMOUNT IS RECEIVABLE BY THE ASSESSEE, UNLESS THE ATE PASSES ITS FINAL ORDER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT HAS RIGHTLY RECOGNIZED THE REVENUE WHICH IS ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE SALE PRICE FIXED BY THE STA TE GOVERNMENT AND THE REMAINING DISPUTED AMOUNT WAS NOT RECOGNIZED AS REV ENUE WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AS CONTINGENT SALE AND DISCLOSED IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. 12. THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE SAID DISP UTED SALES REVENUE IS ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE OR NOT FOR THE RELEVANT FIN ANCIAL PERIOD IS TO BE DECIDED BASED ON THE PREVAILING FACTS. THE TERM RE VENUE IS NOT DEFINED UNDER THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS 9 ISSUE D BY THE ICAI, DEFINED THE TERM REVENUE AS PER WHICH THE TERM REVENUE IS T HE GROSS INFLOW OF CASH RECEIVABLES OR OTHER CONSIDERATION ACCRUED IN THE C OURSE OF THE ORDINARY ACTIVITIES OF AN ENTERPRISE FROM THE SALE OF GOODS OR FROM THE RENDERING OF SERVICES. THEREFORE, A PARTICULAR REVENUE IS ACCRU ED TO THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE DECIDED BASED ON THE FACTS WHICH PREVAIL AT THE TIM E OF SELLING GOODS OR RENDERING SERVICES. SIMILARLY, THE ACCOUNTING STAN DARD 9 DEALS WITH RECOGNITION OF REVENUE OF AN ENTERPRISE IN A FINANC IAL YEAR. AS PER THE SAID STANDARD, AN ESSENTIAL CRITERION FOR THE RECOGNITIO N OF REVENUE IS THAT THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVABLE FROM THE SALE OF GOODS, TH E RENDERING OF SERVICES OR FROM THE USE BY OTHERS OF ENTERPRISE RESOURCES IS R EASONABLY DETERMINABLE. WHEN SUCH REVENUE IS NOT DETERMINABLE WITHIN REASON ABLE LIMITS, THE RECOGNITION OF REVENUE MAY BE POSTPONED. THE ASSESS EE CONTEND THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE THE A TE FOR DETERMINATION OF PRICE TO BE PAID BY THE APTRANSCO TOWARDS SUPPLY OF POWER, THE ASSESSEE CONTINUED TO BILL THE SALE OF POWER AS PER THE ORIG INAL PPA ENTERED INTO WITH THE APTRANSCO. THE REASON FOR RAISING THE SALE BILL S AS PER THE TERMS OF THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT IS TO KEEP THE ISSUE ALIVE SO TH AT AT A LATER STAGE, THE APTRANSCO CANNOT SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY CLAIM FOR THE ENHANCED PRICE. HOWEVER, IT IS CONTINUOUSLY RECOGNI ZING THE REVENUE AS PER THE PRICE FIXED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT, ACCORDINGL Y, FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IT HAS RECOGNIZED THE REVENUE ON ACCR UAL BASIS AS PER THE PRICE FIXED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. WE FIND FORCE IN TH E ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE WI TH REGARD TO METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AND RECOGNITION OF REVENUE ON ACCRUAL BASIS. THE ONLY DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO THE DIFFE RENTIAL SALE PRICE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PRICE PAID BY THE APTRANSCO. WHEN THE UNCERTAINTY RELATING TO COLLECTABILITY OF SUCH SALE PRICE IS EX ISTED AT THE TIME OF RECOGNITION OF REVENUE, IT CANNOT RECOGNIZE THE REVENUE MERELY ON HYPOTHETICAL SALES FIGURES. THE REVENUE SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED ON REAL I NCOME BASIS AND NOT ON HYPOTHETICAL INCOME. THE DISPUTED AMOUNT CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS A CONTINGENT IN NATURE. THE COLLECTABILITY OF SUCH A MOUNT IS UNCERTAIN AS LONG AS THE ISSUE IS PENDING BEFORE THE ATE AND ALSO DETERM INATION OF SALE PRICE TO BE FIXED BY THE APERC. THEREFORE IT HAS RIGHTLY RECOG NIZED THE REVENUE AND ITA NOS.68 TO 71/VIZAG/2016 M/S. JOCIL LIMITED, DOKIPARRU 9 WHICH HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED FOR LAST SEVER AL YEARS. THE A.O. MERELY BASED ON THE COPIES OF SALE BILLS HAS COME TO THE C ONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE SAID DISPUTED AMO UNT WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE FACTS OF DISPUTES PREVAILING AT THE TIME OF REC OGNITION OF REVENUE. 13. THE FACTS WITH REGARD TO THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTI NG FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE RECOGNITION OF REVENUE ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNT ING TO RECOGNIZE THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE IS CONTINUOUSLY FOLLOWED THIS METHOD OF REVENUE RECOGNITION BY FOLLOWING THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD 9 ISSUED BY THE ICAI. THE ASSESSEE BEING A COMPANY BOUND TO FOLLOW THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 211(3C) OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 WHICH REQUIRES THE ASSES SEE TO FOLLOW ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NOTIFIED BY THE GOVERNMENT OR ISSUED BY T HE ICAI TO PREPARE ITS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. BEING A COMPANY BY FOLLOWING THE PRUDENT POLICIES, IT HAS FOLLOWED THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD 9 TO RECOGNIZE THE REVENUES. ACCORDINGLY, WHERE THE REVENUE HAS CLEARLY ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE THE SAME HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED ON ACCRUAL BASIS BY MAKING NECE SSARY ENTRIES. THE IMPUGNED CONTINGENT SALE AMOUNT IS NEITHER RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE MADE A CLAIM FOR THE HIGHER SALE PRICE BASED ON THE OLD PPA, BUT, THE PURCHASER APTRANSCO HAS DISPUTED THE PRICE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TAKEN THE MATTER BEFORE THE ATE. WHEN THE MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE THE ATE AND THE DETERMINAT ION OF SALE PRICE IS NOT ASCERTAINED AT THE TIME OF RECOGNITION OF REVENUE, THE ONLY OPTION FOR THE ASSESSEE IS TO RECOGNIZE THE REVENUE AS PER THE RAT E FIXED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THEREFORE, THE A.O. WAS NOT CORRECT IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SAID DISPUTED AMOUNT WHICH WAS SHOWN AS CO NTINGENT SALES HAS TO BE RECOGNIZED AS REVENUE FOR THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL PE RIOD. WE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECOGNIZED THE REVENUE AS PER THE RATE FIXED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THE IMPUGNED CONTINGENT SALE IS ONLY A CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID AMOUNT IS RECEIVABLE OR ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE IS DEPENDING UPON THE OUTCOME OF THE DECISION OF ATE. WHEN THE UNCERTAINTY RELATING TO COLLECTABILITY ARISES EITHER AT THE TIM E OF RECOGNITION OF REVENUE OR SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIME OF SALE OR THE RENDERING OF SERVICES, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO MAKE SEPARATE PROVISION TO REFLECT THE UNCERTAIN TY IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS RATHER THAN RECOGNIZING THE REVENUE AND MAKE SEPARATE PROVISIONS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN THE PRESENT CASE ON HA ND, ON PERUSAL OF THE FACTS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY RECOGN IZED THE REVENUE IN THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL PERIOD AS PER THE RATE FIXED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT WHICH IS THE AMOUNT PAYABLE BY THE APTRANSCO. THE DISPUT ED AMOUNT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A MERE CLAIM AND THE ASSESSEE HAS N O RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE SAID AMOUNT, UNLESS THE MATTER IS DECIDED BY THE ATE. T HE FACT THAT THE MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE THE ATE FOR FINAL DETERMINATION OF T HE SALE PRICE CANNOT BE IGNORED. UNLESS, THE ATE DETERMINED THE FINAL SALE PRICE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT RECOGNIZE THE REVENUE AS PER THE DEMAND OR AS PER T HE CLAIM MADE BEFORE THE APTRANSCO. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION TH AT THE A.O. WAS NOT CORRECT IN TREATING THE CONTINGENT SALES AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.68 TO 71/VIZAG/2016 M/S. JOCIL LIMITED, DOKIPARRU 10 14. COMING TO THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF I NDIA, IN THE CASE OF GODHARA ELECTRICITY COMPANY LTD. VS. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 746, WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE INCOME ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED BY TAKING THE PROBABILITY OF REALIZAT ION OF INCOME AND IN CASE IF THE AMOUNT TO BE REALIZED IS UNDER DISPUTE, THERE W AS NO REAL INCOME ACCRUES TO THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PORTION IS EXTRACTED BELOW:- UNDER THE ACT INCOME CHARGED TO TAX IS THE INCOME THAT IS RECEIVED OR IS DEEMED TO BE RECEIVED IN INDIA IN TH E PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE YEAR FOR WHICH ASSESSMENT IS M ADE OR ON THE INCOME THAT ACCRUES OR ARISES OR IS DEEMED TO A CCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA DURING SUCH YEAR. THE COMPUTATION OF SUCH INCOME IS TO BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT M AY BE EITHER THE CASH SYSTEM WHERE ENTRIES ARE MADE ON TH E BASIS OF ACTUAL RECEIPTS AND ACTUAL OUTGOINGS OR DISBURSEMEN TS OR IT MAY BE THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM WHERE ENTRIES ARE MADE ON ACCRUAL BASIS, I.E., ACCRUAL OF THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE PAYMEN T AND THE ACCRUAL OF THE LIABILITY TO DISBURSE OR PAY. IF THE ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED UNDER THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM WHAT HAS TO BE SEEN IS WHETHER INCOME CAN BE SAID TO HAVE REALLY ACCRUED T O THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS FOLLOWING G THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND HAD MADE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS REGARDING ENHANCED CHARGES FOR THE SUPPLY MADE TO THE CONSUMERS, NO REAL INCOME HAD ACCRUED T O THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN RESPECT OF THOSE ENHANCED CHARG ES IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT SOON AFTER THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY DECIDED TO ENHANCE THE RATES IN 1963 REPRESENTATIVE SUITS ( CIVIL SUITS NOS. 152 OF 1963 AND 50 OF 1964) WERE FILED BY THE CONSUMERS WHICH WERE DECREED BY THE TRIAL COURT AND WHICH DEC REE WAS AFFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE COURT AND THE SINGLE JUDG E OF THE HIGH COURT AND IT IS ONLY ON 8TH DEC., 1968 THAT TH E LETTERS PATENT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WERE A LLOWED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT AND THE SAID S UITS WERE DISMISSED. BUT APPEALS WERE FILED AGAINST THE SAID JUDGMENT BY THE CONSUMERS IN THIS COURT AND THE SAME WERE DISMI SSED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT DT. 26TH FEB., 1969. SHO RTLY THEREAFTER, ON 19TH MARCH, 1969, THE UNDER SECRETAR Y TO THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT WROTE A LETTER ADVISING THE A SSESSEE - COMPANY TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO FOR THE RATES TO THE CONSUMERS FOR AT LEAST SIX MONTHS AND THE CHIEF ELE CTRICAL INSPECTOR WAS DIRECTED TO GO THROUGH THE ACCOUNTS O F THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND TO REPORT TO THE GOVERNMENT ABOUT THE ACTUAL POSITION ABOUT THE REAS ONABLE RETURNS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. ON 16TH MAY , 1969 ANOTHER REPRESENTATIVE SUIT (SUIT NO. 118 OF 1969) WAS FILED BY THE CONSUMERS WHEREIN INTERIM INJUNCTION WAS GRANTE D BY THE COURT AND WHICH WAS FINALLY DECREED IN FAVOUR OF TH E CONSUMERS ITA NOS.68 TO 71/VIZAG/2016 M/S. JOCIL LIMITED, DOKIPARRU 11 ON 23RD JUNE, 1974, IT WOULD THUS APPEAR THAT AFTER THE DECISION WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO ENHAN CE THE CHARGES IT WAS NOT ABLE TO REALISE THE ENHANCED CHA RGES ON ACCOUNT OF PENDENCY OF THE EARLIER REPRESENTATIVE S UITS OF THE CONSUMERS FOLLOWED BY THE LETTER OF THE UNDER SECRE TARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT AND THE SUBSEQUENT SUIT OF TH E CONSUMERS AND DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE SUBSEQUENT SUIT THE MANAGEMENT OF THE UNDERTAKING OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPA NY WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT UNDER THE D EFENCE OF INDIA RULES, 1971 AND THE UNDERTAKING WAS SUBSEQUEN TLY TRANSFERRED TO THE GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD. IT IS NO DOUBT TRUE THAT THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE UNDER SECRETA RY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAD N O LEGALLY BINDING EFFECT BUT ONE HAS TO LOOK AT THINGS FROM P RACTICAL POINT OF VIEW. THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE WAS REAL ACCRUA L OF INCOME TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IN RESPECT OF THE ENHANCED CHARGES FOR SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY HAS TO BE CONSIDERED BY T AKING THE PROBABILITY OR IMPROBABILITY OF REALISATION IN A RE ALISTIC MANNER. IF THE MATTER IS CONSIDERED IN THIS LIGHT, IT IS NO T POSSIBLE TO HOLD THAT THERE WAS REAL ACCRUAL OF INCOME TO THE A SSESSEE- COMPANY IN RESPECT OF THE ENHANCED CHARGES FOR SUPP LY OF ELECTRICITY WHICH WERE ADDED BY THE ITO WHILE PASSI NG THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AAC WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE SA ID ADDITION MADE BY THE ITO AND-THE TRIBUNAL HAD RIGHTLY HELD T HAT THE CLAIM AT THE INCREASED RATES AS MADE BY THE ASSESSE E COMPANY ON THE BASIS OF WHICH NECESSARY ENTRIES WERE MADE R EPRESENTED ONLY HYPOTHETICAL INCOME AND THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS A S BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ITO DID NOT REPRESENT THE INC OME WHICH HAD REALLY ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY DURING T HE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEARS. THE HIGH COURT WAS IN ERRO R IN UPSETTING THE SAID VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL.CIT VS. GO DHRA ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. (1983) 32 CTR (GUJ) 141 : (198 3) 140 ITR 657 (GUJ) : TC 39R.493 SET ASIDE; CIT VS. SHOORJI V A!LABHDAS& CO. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) : TC 39R.737; CIT VS. BI RLA GWALIOR (P)LTD. 1973 CTR (SC) 349 : (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC) TC 39R.754; POONA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD. VS. CIT (19 65) 57 ITR 521 (SC) : TC 13R.287, STATE.BANK OF TRAVANCORE VS. CIT (1986) 50 CTR (SC) 290 : (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC) TC 39R.795 AND H,M...KASHIPAREKH&CO. LTD. VS. CIT (1960) 39 IT R 706 (BORN) : TC 39R.791 APPLIED. 15. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE COORDINATE BENCH D ECISION OF ITAT, HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SRI BALAJI BIO MA SS POWER PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.1748/HYD/2008. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIB UNAL, UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HELD THAT MERELY BASED ON THE INVOICE S RAISED, THE INCOME CANNOT BE DEEMED TO ACCRUE TO THE ASSESSEE, WHEN TH E DIFFERENTIAL INCOME WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF LITIGATION AND ALSO THERE IS NO CERTAINTY OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NOS.68 TO 71/VIZAG/2016 M/S. JOCIL LIMITED, DOKIPARRU 12 BEING INTENDED TO SUCH INCOME UNLESS IT SUCCEEDS IN SUCH LITIGATION. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUND ER: 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ONLY QUESTION THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF SALES, VIZ, WORKED OUT AT RS.3.48/- PER UNIT AS PER THE POWER PURCHASE AGR EEMENT APPLYING WHICH INVOICES FOR SUPPLY OF POWER TO APTRANSCO WER E RAISED AND RS.3.18/- APPLYING WHICH IN TERMS OF THE INTERIM OR DERS OF THE HON'BLE A.P. HIGH COURT, INVOICES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE SETT LED BY THE APTRANSCO AND ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT, CAN BE TREATED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005- 06. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN ELABORATE REA SONING BEFORE CONCLUDING THAT THE INCOME WORKED AT THE RATE OF RS .3.48/- PER UNIT OF POWER SUPPLIED HAD NEITHER ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS RECEIVABLE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND THEREFORE, NO CORRESPONDING DEBT IN RESPECT OF THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT STOOD CR EATED IN THE BOOKS OF THE PURCHASER, I.E. APTRANSCO. MERELY BASED ON T HE INVOICES RAISED, INCOME CANNOT BE DEEMED TO ACCRUE TO THE AS SESSEE, WHEN THE DIFFERENTIAL INCOME WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF LITIGATIO N, AND THERE IS NO CERTAINTY OF THE ASSESSEE BEING ENTITLED TO SUCH IN COME, UNLESS IT SUCCEEDS IN SUCH LITIGATION. EVEN IF AN ASSESSEE SU CCEEDS ULTIMATELY IN THE LITIGATION, A DEBT ENFORCEABLE AGAINST THE OTHE R PARTY DOES NOT GET CREATED, UNLESS A CLAIM IN THAT BEHALF WAS RAISED B EFORE THE SAME BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. IT IS FOR THIS REASON T HAT AN ASSESSEE, TO KEEP THE ISSUE ALIVE, HAS TO RAISE THE CLAIM AGAINS T THE OTHER PARTY WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION, WHICH IN ITS VIEW IS DUE TO IT ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, SO AS TO GET AN ENFOR CEABLE RIGHT FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE AMOUNT AS AND WHEN IT SUCCEEDS IN T HE LITIGATION. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THOUGH INVOICES RAISED CON STITUTE FUNDAMENTAL RECORD FOR MAINTENANCE OF ACCOUNTS IN THE NORMAL CO URSE, AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THAT LOGIC DOES NOT HOLD GOOD WHEN THE SUBJECT MATTER WAS UNDER DISPUTE AND WAS UNDER LITI GATION BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FORA, INCLUDING THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT AND HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DURING THE RELEVANT POINTS OF TIME. A SSESSEE'S METHOD OF ACCOUNTING ONLY THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF LITIGATION AND WHICH IN FACT WAS RECEIVED BY IT FRO M THE APTRANSCO IN TERMS OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE A.P. HIGH COURT, WAS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD 9 AND THE RATIO LAID D OWN BY THE APEX COURT, AMONG OTHERS, IN THE CASE LAW DISCUSSED BY T HE CIT (A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, AND ALSO IN THE CASE-LAW RELIED UPO N BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE FIND NO I NFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE REJECTED. 16. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND ALSO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPR EME COURT OF INDIA, IN THE CASE OF GODHARA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY VS. CIT (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED CONTINGENT SALE ON ACCOUNT O F DIFFERENTIAL SALE PRICE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS PENDING BEFORE TH E ATE FOR ADJUDICATION IS NOT ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS REVENUE FOR THE RELE VANT FINANCIAL YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY RECOGNIZED THE REVENUE AS PER THE SALE PRICE FIXED BY THE ITA NOS.68 TO 71/VIZAG/2016 M/S. JOCIL LIMITED, DOKIPARRU 13 STATE GOVERNMENT WHICH IS THE REAL INCOME ACCRUED T O THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PREVAILING SITUATION. THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS A MERE CLAIM WHICH WAS NOT SETTLED BY THE AUTHORITIES. UNL ESS THE ISSUE IS SETTLED, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT RECOGNIZE ITS REVENUE MERELY BASED ON ITS CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY TREATED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SALE PRICE CLAIMED AND THE PRICE PAID BY THE APTRANSCO AS CONTINGENT SALES. TH E CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. WE DO NOT SEE ANY ERROR OR INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A). HENCE, WE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE CIT(A) ORDER AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 6. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND ALSO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF COORDINATE B ENCH, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN ITA NO. 696/VIZAG/2013 DATED 27.5.2016, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGN ED CONTINGENT SALE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENTIAL SALE PRICE CLAIMED BY TH E ASSESSEE WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICI TY IS NOT ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS REVENUE FOR THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR . THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT FACTS HAS RIGHTLY DELETED ADDI TIONS MADE BY THE A.O. WE DO NOT SEE ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HENCE, WE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE CIT(A) ORDER AND DISMISS THE APPEAL F ILED BY THE REVENUE. 7. THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN ITA NOS.69 TO 7 1/VIZAG/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07, 2010-11 & 2011-12 ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ITA NO.68/VIZAG/2016. THEREFORE, FOR THE DETAILED DISCUSSIONS IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS IN ITA NO.68/VIZAG/2016, WE DI SMISS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, 201 0-11 & 2011-12. ITA NOS.68 TO 71/VIZAG/2016 M/S. JOCIL LIMITED, DOKIPARRU 14 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NOS.68 TO 71/VIZAG/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 200 6-07, 2010-11 & 2011-12 ARE DISMISSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 28 TH APR17. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (V. DURGA RAO) (G. MANJUNATHA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /VISAKHAPATNAM: ' /DATED : 28.04.2017 VG/SPS )# *# /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR 2. / THE RESPONDENT M/S. JOCIL LIMITED, DOKIPARRU, N ARASARAOPET ROAD, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. + / THE CIT, GUNTUR 4. + ( ) / THE CIT (A)-1, GUNTUR 5. # . , . , # / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY //