The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi V. M/s. Deev Gensets Sales & Services,

ITA 687/AHD/2006

• Counselvise Citation: 68720514 RSA 2006
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 22-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2006
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND SHRI B. P. JAIN , AM) ITA NO. 687, 688, 689,690 AND 691/AHD/2006 A. Y.: 1997-98, 1998-99,1999-2000, 2000-01 AND 2002 -03 THE A. C. I. T., VAPI CIRCLE, AJIT NAGAR, VAPI VS M/S. DEV GENSET SALES & SERVICE, SURVEY NO. 277/1/3, DADRA, UT OF DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI PA NO. AACFD 0992 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 121, 122, 123, 124 AND 125/AHD/2006 (IN ITA NO. 687, 688, 689,690 AND 691/AHD/2006 - A.Y.: 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01 AND 2002 -03) M/S. DEV GENSET SALES & SERVICE, SURVEY NO. 277/1/3, DADRA, UT OF DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI VS THE A. C. I. T., VAPI CIRCLE, AJIT NAGAR, VAPI PA NO. AACFD 0992 J (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY SHRI B. L. YADAV, DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI M. K. PATEL, AR DATE OF HEARING: 22-12-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30-12-2011 O R D E R PER BENCH: ALL THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), VAL SAD DATED 26 TH DECEMBER, 2005, FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. ALL THE CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE MAINLY FILED IN SUPP ORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS AND DI RECTING TO ALLOW ITA NO.687, 688, 689, 690 AND 691/AHD/2006 C. O. NO.121, 122, 123, 124 AND 125/AHD/2006 M/S DEB GENSET SALES & SERVICES 2 NETTING OF THE INTEREST FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTIO N U/S 80 IB OF THE IT ACT. 2. SINCE THE CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE FILED MAINLY IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND NO SPECIFIC RELIEF IS CALLED FOR, THEREFORE, THEY ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE PRESENT FORM AND ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED BEING INFRUCTUOUS. 3. IN ALL THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS, THE REVENUE RAI SED IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1, 2 AND 3 WHICH READ AS UNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT TH E ACTIVITY OF ASSESSEE IS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY WITH IN THE MEANING OF SEC. 80IB AND NOT ASSEMBLING. 2. IN VIEW OF SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE O F GEM GRANITE VS CIT (271 ITR 322) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DECIDING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON THE JUDGEMENTS IN CENTRAL EXCISE MATTERS, AS THE HON. SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT PROVISIONS IN CENTRAL EXCISE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS TARIFFS ARE NOT PROPER AID TO CONSTRUE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GRANTING THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE CIT V S BABCOCK & WILCOX INDIA LTD. (1999) 158 CTR 352, WHICH ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACT OF THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIALS PLACED ON RECORD. THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ITA NO.687, 688, 689, 690 AND 691/AHD/2006 C. O. NO.121, 122, 123, 124 AND 125/AHD/2006 M/S DEB GENSET SALES & SERVICES 3 THAT ON THE ABOVE ISSUES/GROUNDS OF APPEAL REGARDIN G CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB OF THE IT ACT, THE ASSESSEE PRE FERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-0 2 ON THE IDENTICAL GROUNDS WHICH HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY HIS PR EDECESSOR HOLDING THAT THE ACTIVITY OF ASSEMBLING VARIOUS COM PONENTS INTO DIESEL GENERATOR SET CONSTITUTES MANUFACTURING. THE ASSESS EE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2001-02 BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT APPEALS AND THE L EARNED CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS ORDER IS SAME AS IN THE PRESENT APPEALS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AGREEING TO THE FINDING S OF HIS PREDECESSOR AND FOLLOWING THE SAID ORDER HELD THAT THE ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THUS CONSTITUTES MANUFACTURING. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTS ET SUBMITTED THAT ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE SAME A SSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA NO. 1034/AHD/2005 DI SMISSED THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL ON IDENTICAL GROUND OF APPEAL. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08-05-2009 IS PLACED ON RECORD. HE HAS FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL WAS DISMISSED IN ITA NO.987/AHD /2009 DATED 14-10-2011. IN THIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWED THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND DISMISSED THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. CO PY OF THE ORDER IS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD. ITA NO.687, 688, 689, 690 AND 691/AHD/2006 C. O. NO.121, 122, 123, 124 AND 125/AHD/2006 M/S DEB GENSET SALES & SERVICES 4 6. THE LEARNED DR ON GOING THROUGH THE SAME ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL STATED THAT THE ISSUES ARE COVERED IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL REFERRED TO ABOVE. 7. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS WE ARE OF TH E VIEW SIMILAR ISSUE IS CONSIDERED BY ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA NO.1034/AHD/2005 ORDER DATED 08 -05-2009 AND THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED. THE SAM E ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IS FURTHER FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 (SUPRA) AND THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMIS SED. THE FINDINGS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN ITA NO.987/A HD/2009 DATED 14-10-2011 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 2 TO 4 AR E REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ITA NO.987/AHD/2009 (REVENUES APPEAL) 2. THE FIRST GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTIVITY OF ASSESSEE IS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 80IB(2) AND NOT ASSEMBLING AND DIRECTING TO ALLOW DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB AMOUNTING TO RS.1,77,077/- 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2001-2002 VIDE ITA NO.1034/AHD/2005. THAT IN A.Y.2001-2002 ALSO THE AO REFUSED TO ALLOW DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 80IB ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE S ITA NO.687, 688, 689, 690 AND 691/AHD/2006 C. O. NO.121, 122, 123, 124 AND 125/AHD/2006 M/S DEB GENSET SALES & SERVICES 5 ACTIVITY DOES NOT AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURE. ON APPEAL , THE ITAT CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE AT LENGTH AND HELD AS UN DER: THE ASSESSEE MANUFACTURED SAFETY DEVICE AND OTHER EQUIPMENT WHICH A VERY VITAL FOR THE OPERATIO N OF GENERATOR SET. THE ACTIVITY AS CARRIED OUT BY TH E ASSESSEE-FIRM IS NOT OF ERECTION AND COMMISSION OF MACHINES BUT IT REQUIRES THE SKILLED TECHNICIANS, SOPHISTICATED MACHINES LIKE LATHE MACHINE, DRILLING MACHINE A WELDING MACHINE, ETC. AFTER BRINGING THESE VARIOUS EQUIPMENTS TOGETHER AND AFT CARRYING OUT VARIOUS PROCESSES, SUCH AS WELDING, MOUNTING, COUPLING, BORING, WIRING AND JOINING, ETC., ON VARI OUS EQUIPMENTS AND MACHINES, SUCH AS, DIESEL ENGINE COUPLING, CONTROL PANEL AND FUEL TANK, ETC. A NEW PRODUCT IN THE FORM OF D G. SET W BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE FOR THE GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY WE FIND THAT IT HAS MANUFACTURED SAFETY DEVICE AND CONTROL PANELS, WHICH ARE VITAL TO REGULATE THE FUNCTIONING OF VARIOUS EQUIPMENTS AND IT THIS WAY ALL THE COMPONENTS WE ASSEMBLED TOGETHER AND THESE FUNCTIONED TOGETHER TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY. THUS, THE BASIS OF ABOVE REFERRED DETAILS AND FACTS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF BABCOCK & WILCOX INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE'S ACTIVITIE S WERE THAT OF THE MANUFACTURING AND THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE AC T. 4. ADMITTEDLY, THE FACTS OF THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL A RE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE REJECT GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. 8. ADMITTEDLY, THE FACTS OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION ARE IDENTICAL AS WERE CONSIDERED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 1-02. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE ITA NO.687, 688, 689, 690 AND 691/AHD/2006 C. O. NO.121, 122, 123, 124 AND 125/AHD/2006 M/S DEB GENSET SALES & SERVICES 6 ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 01-02 WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE DI SMISS ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS OF REVENUE WHICH WERE SIMILARLY CONSIDERED IN EARLIER YEAR. 9. IN THE RESULT, GROUNDS NO.1, 2 AND 3 IN ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 10. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND 2002-03, THE REV ENUE HAS RAISED COMMON GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 WHICH READS AS UNDER: 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW THE BENEFIT OF NETTING OUT OF INTEREST INCOME WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO DIRECT JUDGME NT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE ISSUE WHEREAS THE INTERES T INCOME WAS TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BY TH E AO FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF PAN DIAN CHEMICALS LTD. 262 ITR 278 (SC) & CIT VS. STERLING FOODS (1999) 237 ITR 579. 11. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N INCLUDED THE INCOME EARNED ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON FDRS FOR BG AND LC MARGIN AND PRIOR YEAR INCOME WHILE WORKING OUT PROFITS ELI GIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80 IA / 80IB OF THE IT ACT. THE AO RELYING UPO N THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PANDIAN CH EMICALS LTD. 262 ITR 278 HELD THAT INTEREST INCOME IS NOT DERIVE D FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND HE HAS TAXED THE INTEREST INCOME SE PARATELY. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO IN DEN YING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA/80IB OF THE IT ACT SINCE INTEREST INCOME I S NOT DERIVED FROM ITA NO.687, 688, 689, 690 AND 691/AHD/2006 C. O. NO.121, 122, 123, 124 AND 125/AHD/2006 M/S DEB GENSET SALES & SERVICES 7 INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HOWEVER, WAS OF THE VIEW THAT INTEREST INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED FROM THE BUSIN ESS SOURCES AND IN COURSE OF BUSINESS UNDER BUSINESS COMPULSION. BU T IN PRINCIPLE, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION DENYING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80 IA / 80IB OF THE IT ACT BECAUSE INTEREST IS NOT DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. THE ASSESSEE MADE FURTHER ALTERNATE CLAIM BEFORE THE LE ARNED CIT(A) CLAIMING NETTING OF THE INTEREST. IT WAS CLAIMED TH AT AMOUNT OF INTEREST EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS EFFECTIVELY RECOVERY OF I NTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND CHARGED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THOU GH THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAID/RECEIVED SEPARATELY IN THEIR PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, BUT IN SUBSTANCE IT IS ONLY REDUCTION OF TOTAL INTEREST COST. THE NET PROFIT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS ALSO DERIVED ONLY FROM MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND HENCE, THE AMO UNT OF INTEREST EARNED BY THEM IS ELIGIBLE FOR NETTING AGAINST EXPE NSES OF INTEREST INCURRED BY THEM. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOLLOWING SOME ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT THAT INTEREST RECEIVED NEEDS TO BE SET OFF AGAINST INTER EST EXPENSES. IT WAS HOWEVER, CLARIFIED THAT THE SAME WOULD NOT QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION U/S 801IA / 80IB OF THE IT ACT. 12. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE INTEREST ON FDR FOR BG AND LC MARGIN DID NOT DERIVE FROM MANUFACTURING ACT IVITY, THEREFORE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW CORRECTLY DENIED DEDUCTION U/ S 80IA / 80IB OF THE IT ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ON SUCH ISSUE, T HE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE OF NETTING OF INT EREST IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A ). ITA NO.687, 688, 689, 690 AND 691/AHD/2006 C. O. NO.121, 122, 123, 124 AND 125/AHD/2006 M/S DEB GENSET SALES & SERVICES 8 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE F ACTS NOTED BY THE AO HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE INC LUDED INTEREST ON FDR FOR BG AND LC MARGIN FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTI ON U/S 80IA / 80IB OF THE IT ACT. DEDUCTION WAS DENIED TO THE AS SESSEE BECAUSE SUCH INCOME WAS NOT DERIVED FORM MANUFACTURING ACTI VITY OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY IF THE ASSESSEE HAS ANY NEXUS WITH THE INTE REST EXPENSES AND EARNING OF INTEREST ON MARGIN MONEY AND FDR. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY NEXUS BROUGHT ON RECORD BETWEEN INTEREST EXPENSES A ND INTEREST INCOME, THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE AGREED T O THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ISSUE WAS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) REGARDING DENIAL OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB OF T HE IT ACT ON INTEREST ON FDR FOR BG AND LC MARGIN WHICH THE LEARNED CIT( A) HAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO REASO N TO EXCEED THE JURISDICTION WHILE GRANTING FURTHER RELIEF ON THE M ATTER WHICH IS WHOLLY UNCONNECTED WITH THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA / 80IB OF THE IT ACT. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS DR. V. P. GOPINATHAN, 248 ITR 499 HELD AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAD PUT MONEYS IN FIXED DEPOSIT WITH A BANK AND HAD EARNED INTEREST OF RS.1,17,444. ON THE SECURITY OF THE AMOUNT SO DEPOSITED, THE ASSESSEE TOOK A LOAN FROM THE BANK AND PAID IN RESPECT OF THE LOAN INTEREST OF RS.90,410. THE QUES TION WAS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE COULD BE TAXED ONLY ON THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.27,034: HELD, THAT THE INTEREST THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED FROM THE BANK ON THE FIXED DEPOSIT WAS INCOME IN HIS HANDS AND IT COULD STAND DIMINISHED ITA NO.687, 688, 689, 690 AND 691/AHD/2006 C. O. NO.121, 122, 123, 124 AND 125/AHD/2006 M/S DEB GENSET SALES & SERVICES 9 ONLY IF THERE WAS A PROVISION OF LAW PERMITTING SUC H DIMINUTION. THERE WAS NO SUCH PROVISION OF LAW AND THE INTEREST ON THE LOAN TAKEN FROM THE BANK DID NO T REDUCE HIS INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST ON THE FIXED DEPOSIT. 13.1 THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS ASIAN STAR CO. LTD., 326 ITR 56 HELD AS UNDER: IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL BY HOLDING THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN COMI NG TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE NET INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS IN THE BANK RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOUL D BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING OUT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 HHC AND NOT THE GROSS INTEREST. THE QUESTION OF LAW WOULD ACCORDINGLY STA ND ANSWERED IN THE AFORESAID TERMS IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 14. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERIN G THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY SUFFICIENT MATERIA L ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY NETTING OF THE INTEREST ON THE MATTER IN IS SUE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN D IRECTING THE AO TO NET OUT OF THE INTEREST. WE ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON GROUND NO.4 IN BOTH THE ASSESSMEN T YEARS AND RESTORE THE ORDER OF THE AO. 15. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.4 OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2002-03 ARE ALLOWE D. 16. NO OTHER POINT IS ARGUED OR PRESSED. ITA NO.687, 688, 689, 690 AND 691/AHD/2006 C. O. NO.121, 122, 123, 124 AND 125/AHD/2006 M/S DEB GENSET SALES & SERVICES 10 17. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS IN ASSE SSMENT YEARS 1997-98, 1998-99 AND 1999-2000 ARE DISMISSED. THE D EPARTMENTAL APPEALS IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2002-03 ARE HOWEVER, PARTLY ALLOWED. ALL THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASS ESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (B. P. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD