M/s. Bramha Bazaz Hotels Ltd., Pune V. CIT-I, Pune

ITA 770/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9959 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKESH VERMA
• Keywords: Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

N THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 770/PN/2011 (ASSTT. YEAR :20 06-07 ) M/S. BRAMHA BAZAZ HOTELS LTD., APPELLANT RAJA BAHADUR MILL ROAD, PUNE PAN : AACB7054L V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- I, PUNE RESPONDENT B-WING, PMT BLDG., PUNE APPELLANT BY : SHRI KISHORE PHADKE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M UKESH VERMA, CIT DATE OF HEARING : 18/9/ 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28- 9-12 O R D E R PER R.S. PADVEKAR, JM IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE IMPUGN ED ORDER OF THE LD CIT-I, PUNE, PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE I.T. ACT, 19 62, DATED 31 ST MARCH 2011 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS : 1. THE LEARNED CIT-1, PUNE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN DIRECTING DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE ON BUY-BACK OF SHARES A MOUNTING TO RS.3,45,95,921/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS BASED ON BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY AND HENCE, ALLOWABLE U /S 37. 2. THE LEARNED CIT-I, PUNE ERRED IN LAW IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 263 W.R.T. EXPENDITURE ON BUY-BACK OF SHARES WITHOU T APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT WHEN TWO POSSIBLE VIEWS ARE AVAILABLE, AD OPTING ONE VIEW DOES NOT LEAD TO ANY ERROR WHICH NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED B Y RESORTING TO SECTION 263 OF THE ITA, 1961. 2. THE FACTS WHICH REVEAL FROM THE RECORD ARE AS UN DER. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF HOTEL. THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 143(3) WAS COMPLETED VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.200 8. SUBSEQUENTLY, LD CIT, PUNE, BY EXERCISING HIS JURISDICTION U/S. 263 PASSED THE ORDER DIRECTING THE A.O TO DISALLOW THE SUM OF RS.3,45,9 5,921/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF PREM IUM PAID AT THE TIME 2 ITA NO. 770/PN/2011 M/S. BRAHMA BAZAZ HOTELS LTD. A.Y. 2006-07 OF BUY BACK OF THE SHARES AS PER CLB ORDER. THE AS SESSEE COMPANY INCORPORATED IN THE YEAR 1987 AND THE HOTEL ACTIVIT Y WAS STARTED IN THE YEAR 1998-99. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS FORMED BY T HE AGARWAL GROUP REPRESENTED BY VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS, WHO WERE THE SHAREHOLDERS AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONSISTING OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS . THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD UNDERTAKEN THE PROJECT FOR ACQUIRING TH E PROPERTY IN THE GOVERNMENT AUCTION TO ESTABLISH HOTEL. THE ASSESSE E MADE THE TIE UP WITH THE MERIDIEN GROUP IN THE COMMERCIAL INTEREST OF THE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE NEEDED HUGE FUNDS AND HENCE, EQUITY PARTIC IPATION OF SOME INVESTORS WAS SOUGHT AND FUNDS WERE GENERATED FOR T HE DESIRED PROJECT OF FIVE STAR DELUX HOTEL. THE SHARES WERE HELD BY (A ) AGARWAL GROUP, (B) MAC CHARLES GROUP AND (C) GUPTA GROUP. THE DISPUT E STARTED IN THE STAKEHOLDERS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM THE YEAR 2002-03 AS REGARDS MANAGEMENT ASPECTS, CONTROL, BORROWING PATTERN, ETC ., THOUGH THE ATTEMPTS WERE MADE TO RESOLVE THE DIFFERENCES BETWE EN THE SHAREHOLDERS GROUP CONSIDERING THE INTEREST OF THE COMPANY, BUT DISPUTE COULD NOT BE SETTLED AMICABLY. 3. ONE OF THE GROUP OF THE SHAREHOLDERS I.E. MAC G ROUP STARTED FILING CASES AGAINST THE ASSESSEE COMPANY INCLUDING THE CR IMINAL AND CIVIL CASES ALSO, AGAINST THE AGARWAL GROUP. THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY WAS SUBJECTED TO CHARGES OF MIS-MANAGEMENT AND OPPRESSION BY THE MAC GROUP. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE COMBAY LAW BOARD (CLB ), DELHI BY INVOKING SEC. 397-398 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. THERE WAS THE BATTLE OF LITIGATION IN THE CLB. DURING THE PERIOD OF THE LITIGATION, ASSESSEES HOTEL BUSINESS SUFFERED. AS PER THE M.O.U. BETWEE N THE ASSESSEE AND MERIDIEN GROUP, THE EXPANSIONS, MODERNIZATIONS, REP LACEMENTS AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS WHICH WERE CONTRACTUAL UNDERTAKINGS OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE PROPERLY ADDRESSED. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, DUE T O THE LEGAL BATTLE BETWEEN THE GROUP OF THE SHAREHOLDERS, THE BUSINESS INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS SERIOUSLY AFFECTED. ACCORDING LY, THE COMPANY PUT THE PROPOSAL BEFORE THE CLB FOR BUY BACK OF THE SH ARES OF SOME GROUP OF SHAREHOLDERS. ACCORDINGLY, MAC GROUP SHARES WER E DECIDED TO BE BOUGHT BACK BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN THIS BACK GROUND, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS REQUIRED TO PAY THE BUY BACK P REMIUM FOR PUTTING THE END TO THE BATTLE BETWEEN GROUPS OF THE SHAREH OLDERS. THE EXTRA AMOUNT PAID OVER AND ABOVE THE FACE VALUE OF THE AS SESSEE COMPANY IN THE BUY BACK DEAL WAS CLAIMED AS A REVENUE BUSINE SS EXPENDITURE. THE 3 ITA NO. 770/PN/2011 M/S. BRAHMA BAZAZ HOTELS LTD. A.Y. 2006-07 A.O. WAS CONVINCED THAT THE PREMIUM ON THE BUY BA CK OF THE SHARES WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY WAS FOR PROTECTING THE BUSINESS INTEREST. MOREOVER, AS PE R THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CLB, ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THE ENTIRE CAPITAL OF THE MA C GROUP (MAC CHARLES INDIA LTD.) I.E. 50% OF THE TOTAL CAPITAL. ACCORDI NGLY, THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED 48,75,094 SHARES FROM MAC CHARLES INDIA LTD. BY PAYING EXTRA AMOUNT OF RS.3,45,95,521/-. THOUGH THE A.O ACCEPT ED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BUT, THE LD CIT, PUNE WAS OF THE OPINION T HAT IT WAS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND THE A.O OUGHT TO HAVE GONE INTO DEP TH OF THE SAID ISSUE AND THE A.O. HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT A PPLICATION OF HIS MIND AND HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O U/S. 143(3) WAS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERES T OF THE REVENUE. THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI, IN THE CASE OF ECHJAY INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. CIT, 88 TTJ 1089 (MUM) WAS CITED BEFORE THE LD CIT, BUT HE DID NOT CONSIDER THAT DECISION BY STATING THAT IT IS NOT CL EAR WHETHER SAID DECISION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE OR WHETHER THE MAT TER IS PENDING BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE LD CIT I, PUNE DIRECT ED TO A.O TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS.3,45,95,921/- BY TREATING THE SAME A S A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. NOW ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE LD COUNSEL RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ECHJAY INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. DCIT, 88 TTJ 1089 (MUM) AS W ELL AS CHEMOSYN LIMITED VS. ACIT, MUMBAI, ITA NOS. 6382/MUM/2011, O RDER DATED 7.9.2012. THE LD COUNSEL ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISI ON OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LIM ITED, 243 ITR 83 TO SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENT THAT BOTH THE CONDITIONS OF SE C. 263 OF THE ACT MUST BE SATISFIED I.E. (1) THE ORDER MUST BE ERRONEOUS AND (2) IT SHOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. HE SUBMITS THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ECHJAY INDUSTRIES LIMITED ( SUPRA) HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY BY DIS MISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE SAID DECISION I.E. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 337 OF 2004, ORDER DATED 30 TH JULY 2008. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD COUNSEL IS THAT THE ISSUE WHICH IS A SUBJECT MATTER OF REVISION U/S. 263 CANNOT BE TREATED AS A CAPITAL EX PENDITURE AS THE SAME IS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE AS HELD IN THE CASE OF ECH JAY INDUSTRIES LIMITED 4 ITA NO. 770/PN/2011 M/S. BRAHMA BAZAZ HOTELS LTD. A.Y. 2006-07 (SUPRA). HE PLEADED THAT MERELY THE REVENUE LOSS C ANNOT BE THE CRITERIA FOR EXERCISING JURISDICTION U/S. 263. 5. PER CONTRA, THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT-I, PUNE. AS PER THE FACTS ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS FIERCE LITIGATION BETWEEN THE GROUPS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE ASSES SEE COMPANY. ONE GROUP OF THE SHAREHOLDERS I.E. MAC CHARLES INDIA LT D. FILED THE CASES AGAINST THE OTHER GROUPS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AS WEL L AS THE COMPANY ALLEGING THE SERIOUS CHARGES OF THE MIS-MANAGEMEN T AND OPPRESSION. TO PROTECT THE BUSINESS INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY, PROPOSAL WAS PUT BEFORE THE CLB, NEW DELHI TO BUY BACK THE SHARE S FROM MAC CHARLES INDIA LTD. BY PAYMENT OF EXTRA PREMIUM OVER AND ABO VE THE FACE VALUE. THE ASSESSEE PAID RS.3,45,95,521/- ON THE SHARES AN D CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 6. IN THE CASE OF ECHJAY INDUSTRIES LTD.,(SUPRA) TH ERE WERE SIMILAR FACTS AND IN THE SAID CASE ALSO, THERE WERE TWO WA RRING GROUPS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS. THE LEGAL BATTLE BETWEEN THE TWO WAR RING GROUPS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS REACHED BEFORE THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT A ND AFTER A PERIOD OF OVER SIX YEARS, GOOD SENSE PREVAILED BETWEEN THOSE TWO GROUPS AND A CONSENT TERMS WERE DRAWN BY THE SHAREHOLDERS AND HO NBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY APPROVED THE CONSENT TERMS GIVING DIRECTION TO THE COMPANY TO PURCHASE THE SHARES OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF DOSHI GROU P AND TO PAY EXTRA AMOUNT OF RS. 900/- PER SHARE AS A PREMIUM OVER & A BOVE FACE VALUE OF RS. 100/- PER SHARE. THE AMOUNT PAID AS A PREMIUM WAS CLAIMED AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE, BUT THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED BY THE A.O AND THE DISALLOWANCE WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE ISS UE REACHED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE SAID DECISION IS AS UNDER : 29. FROM THE CASE-LAWS REFERRED TO IN THE SAID COMM ENTARY, IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT WHILE ACCEPTING THE COMPROMISE OR SETTLE MENT BETWEEN THE TWO WARRING GROUPS, FOR A PROCEEDING UNDER SS. 397 AND 398 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, THE COURT WILL KEEP IN MIND THE PRIME IN TEREST OF THE COMPANY AS WELL AS PUBLIC INTEREST. THEREFORE, TO SAY THAT THE INTEREST OF ONLY TWO WARRING GROUPS HAS BEEN KEPT IN MIND IS NOT CORREC T. IT IS DIFFICULT TO CONTRIBUTE OR ACCEPT THE VIEW CANVASSED BY THE REVE NUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED ANY RIGHT OR ADVANTAGE WHICH WOULD AFFECT ITS CAPITAL STRUCTURE. THE SETTLEMENT IN THIS REGARD, AS POINTED OUT EARLIER, WAS THAT AS A RESULT OF THE COMPROMISE THE ASSESSE E ACQUIRED THE SHARES AND THE SHARE CAPITAL WAS REDUCED. NOW THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER, AS WE HAVE STATED EARLIER, MERELY REPRESENTED THE MODE O F SETTLEMENT AND IT CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE THE TEST TO BE APPLIED TO DET ERMINE THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ASSESSEE DERIVED ANY BENEFIT ON CAPITA L ACCOUNT. IN FACT, THE 5 ITA NO. 770/PN/2011 M/S. BRAHMA BAZAZ HOTELS LTD. A.Y. 2006-07 ASSESSEE HAD GOT RID OF THE DISADVANTAGEOUS RELATIO NSHIP WHICH RESULTED AS A RESULT OF DISPUTES BETWEEN THE TWO WARRING GRO UPS OF SHAREHOLDERS. THE SUPREME COURT HAD OCCASION TO CONSIDER SIMILAR CONTROVERSY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AHOK LEYLAND LTD. 1973 CTR (SC) 9: (1972) 86 ITR 549 (SC) IN WHICH THE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT THE PRIN CIPLES WHICH FLOW FROM THE ABOVE CITED DECISIONS CLEARLY SUGGEST FIRSTLY T HAT THE ENDURING BENEFIT IN ITSELF IS NOT A CONCLUSIVE TEST. SECONDLY, IT I S NECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE ENDURING ADVANTAGE CONSISTED MERELY FAC ILITATING THE ASSESSEES OPERATION OR ENABLING THE MANAGEMENT AND CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS TO BE CARRIED ON MORE EFFICIENT LY OR MORE PROFITABLY WHILE LEAVING THE FIXED CAPITAL UNTOUCHED, THEN SUC H EXPENDITURE WOULD BE ON REVENUE ACCOUNT. THIRDLY, THE QUESTION MUST BE VIEWED IN A LARGER CONTEXT OR BUSINESS NECESSITY OR EXPEDIENCY. HAVI NG REGARD TO THE ABOVE TEST IN THE CASE OF EMPIRE JUT CO. LTD. (SUPRA), TH E POINT WHICH WOULD ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION WOULD BE WHETHER THE EXPEN DITURE INCURRED FOR GETTING RID OF THE MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS, WHO WERE CREATING DIFFICULTIES, WOULD BE AN EXPENDITURE ON REVENUE ACCOUNT. THE AU THORITIES RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHOW THAT P AYMENT MADE TO SECURE PEACE AND HARMONY AND SMOOTH MANAGEMENT OF THE COMPANY, THE INTEREST OF BUSINESS WOULD SERVE AND THAT IS TH E WHOLE PURPOSE OF SUCH PAYMENT. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS PURPO SE WAS ON REVENUE ACCOUNT. APPLYING THOSE PRINCIPLES, THE POSITION T O OUR MIND IS CLEAR THAT BY GETTING RID OF THE MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS, THE CO MPANY COULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE ACQUIRED ANY ENDURING BENEFIT. SECONDL Y, EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT AN ENDURING BENEFIT HAS BEEN OBTAINED , EVEN THEN SUCH ENDURING BENEFIT IS NOT RELATABLE TO FIXED CAPITAL STRUCTURE OF THE COMPANY BECAUSE IT HAS NEITHER INCREASED THE ASSESSEES ASS ETS NOR THE COMPANY COULD BE SAID TO HAVE ACQUIRED ANY RIGHT OF INCOME YIELDING NATURE. THE ACT OF WRITING OFF OF SHARE CAPITAL BY WAY OF REDUC TION, MAY, ON THE FIRST BLUSH, SUGGEST THAT THE CAPITAL STRUCTURE OF THE C OMPANY HAS BEEN AFFECTED, BUT IT IS NOT SO IF THE FACTS ARE EXAMINE D A LITTLE MORE CLOSELY. THE REDUCTION OF THE SHARE CAPITAL WAS MERELY A CO NSEQUENCE OF THE AGREEMENT WHICH HAS TO BE GIVEN EFFECT TO, THAT TOO BY AN ORDER OF THE COURT WHERE THE INTEREST OF THE COMPANY AS WELL AS OF THE PUBLIC HAS TO BE NECESSARILY KEPT IN MIND. THUS WRITING OFF OF SHARE CAPITAL BY WAY OF REDUCTION AS PER THE TERMS OF CONSENT DECREE MERELY WAS A CONSEQUENTIAL ACTION AND DID NOT ITSELF REPRESENT ANY EFFECT ON T HE CAPITAL STRUCTURE OR THE ACQUISITION OF ANY RIGHT YIELDING INCOME OR ADV ANTAGE ON CAPITAL ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN HOLD ING THAT THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE, WHICH WAS INCURRED IN ORDER TO FACILIT ATE THE SMOOTH RUNNING OF THE BUSINESS BY GETTING RID OF THE RECALCITRANT GROUP OF SHAREHOLDERS, WAS AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED OUT OF BUSINESS EXPEDI ENCY AND, THEREFORE, WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED IN THE COURSE OF CA RRYING ON OF THE BUSINESS. SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ATUL CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERING THE EARLIER DECISION IN THE CASE OF IN LAND REVENUE VS. CARRON CO. 45 TAX CASES 18 AND OTHER CASES, CAME TO THE SA ME CONCLUSION. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS POINTED OUT THAT A REFERENCE HAS BEEN GRANTED AGAINST THE SAID DECISION. THEREFORE , IT WAS PLEADED THAT IT HAS NOT REACHED FINALITY. SO FAR AS THIS CONTENTIO N OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS CONCERNED, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT MERELY GRANTING A REFERENCE OF THE QUESTION WILL NO T SHOW THAT THE DECISION IS WRONG. UNLESS IT IS DISTURBED, IT IS A SOUND DE CISION, ESPECIALLY KEEPING IN VIEW THE PURPOSE OF SS. 397 AND 398 OF THE COMPA NIES ACT, 1956. 6 ITA NO. 770/PN/2011 M/S. BRAHMA BAZAZ HOTELS LTD. A.Y. 2006-07 7. THE ABOVE DECISION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE ITAT C BENCH, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF CHEMOSYN LIMITED (SUPRA). TH E DECISION IN THE CASE OF BROOKE BOND INDIA LTD. VS. CIT, 225 ITR 798 (SC) HAS BEEN EXPLAINED IN THE DECISION OF ECHJAY INDUSTRIES LIM ITED (SUPRA). HENCE, IN OUR OPINION, THE ORDER OF THE A.O ON THE ISSUE OF THE PREMIUM PAID ON THE BUY BACK OF SHARES TREATING THE SAME AS A REVEN UE EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS FOR EXERCISING THE J URISDICTION U/S. 263. BOTH THE CONDITIONS THAT (1) ORDER MUST BE ERRONEO US AND (2) SAME SHOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE MU ST BE SATISFIED FOR EXERCISING JURISDICTION U/SEC. 263. IN OUR OPINION , IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT TO THE EXTENT OF THE PRESENT ISSUE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. WE ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT TO THE EXTENT OF THE ISSUE OF THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE PREMIUM PAID IN THE BUY BACK DEAL TO MAC CHARLE YS INDIA LIMITED, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS AND TO THAT EXTENT, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT I, PUNE IS BAD IN LAW. W E MAKE IT CLEAR THAT ON THE ISSUE OF FBT, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED BEFORE THE LD CIT THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE ON HIS PART. HENCE, ON THE SAID ISSUE, T HE ORDER STANDS. 8. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 SEP TEMBER 2012 . SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (R.S.PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED THE 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 US COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE 4. THE D.R. A BENCH, PUNE 5. GUARD FILE /- TRUE COPY-/ BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE