M/s. Duro Traders (P) Ltd., Noida V. JCIT, Noida

ITA 812/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 81220114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S AHLAWAT
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN ITA NO. 812/DEL/2010 A.YR: 2005-06 M/S DURO TRADERS PVT. LTD., VS. JCIT NOIDA RANGE , G-57-58, IST FLOOR, NOIDA. SECTOR-18, NOIDA-201301. PAN: AABCD9104G AND ITA NO. 1474/DEL/2011 A.YR: 2004-05 JCIT NOIDA RANGE, VS. M/S DURO TRADERS PVT. LTD., NOIDA. G-57-58, IST FLOOR, SECTOR-18, NOIDA-201301. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.K. GUPTA ADV. REVENUE BY : SHRI J.S. AHLAWAT, SR. DR O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M: : THESE ARE TWO APPEALS, ONE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2005-06 AND THE OTHER BY THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2004-05. BOTH THE APP EALS ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND BEING DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAK E OF CONVENIENCE. REVENUES APPEAL (ITA NO. 1474/DEL/11 - A.Y. 2004- 05) 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE RAISED: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETI NG THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 14,92,273/- MADE U/S 69B FOR WHICH NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WERE OFFERED BY A SSESSEE. 2 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS BY ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON ASSUMPTION BEING CONTRARY TO THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R . 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN ALLOWI NG RELIEF OF RS. 14,92,273/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS M ENTIONED ELABORATELY IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH WERE FOR MAKING ADDITION U/S 69B OF THE I.T. ACT. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE: ASSESSEE FILED NIL RETURN OF INCOME; THEREAFTER ASSESSEES INCOME WAS ASSESSED U/S 143(3); SUBSEQUE NTLY, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT EXPENSES OF RS. 30,17,073/- IN CURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2004-05 WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF A/CS , CONSEQUENTLY ASSESSEES ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. ASSESSEE EXPLAI NED ITS SIDE; ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED BOOKS OF A/CS AND BIFURCATED CON STRUCTION EXPENSES ON THE BASIS OF STAGES OF COMPLETION AND ON THE BASIS OF B UILDING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OF THE NOIDA AUTHORITY. IT WAS HELD TH AT ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE INCURRED MORE EXPENSES FOR THE STAGE OF COMPLETION AS ON 31-3-2004 OF THE BUILDING AND MADE THE ADDITION BY FOLLOWING OBSERVA TIONS: THE TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RS. 64,00,000/- (WHICH WORKS OUT TO APPROX RS. 470/- PER SQ. FEET AND WAS FOUND TO BE REASONABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDI NG OF THIS TYPE). HOWEVER, AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 3 OF THIS ORDE R THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR CONSTRUCTION COS T OF 1008 SQ. MTRS. IN THE A.Y. 2004-05. THIS HAS NOT BEEN DO NE BY THE ASSESSEE, AS SEEN FROM HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. FROM THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT I S SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE THE APPLICATION WITH COMPLETION DRAWI NGS TO NOIDA AUTHORITY ON 6.4.2004 AND INSPECTION WAS DONE BY NOIDA AUTHORITY ON 15.4.2004 WHEN IT WAS FOUND AND 3 CERTIFIED THAT THE BUILDING OF 1008 SQ. MTRS. WAS C OMPLETE. THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS GIVEN ON 1 ST OF JUNE, 2004. IT IS LIKELY THAT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSEES APPLICATION AND INSP ECTION, THE FINISHING WORK OF THE BUILDING MAY NOT HAVE BEEN DO NE AND COMPLETION WAS ONLY AS PER REQUIREMENT OF NOIDA AUT HORITY AND ASSESSEE MUST HAVE SPENT SOME MORE AMOUNT ON TH E COMPLETION AND FINISHING WORK. IN VIEW OF ALL THESE PRACTICAL ASPECTS, ALLOWANCE OF 30% WAS MADE FOR CALCULATING THE INVESTMENT MADE BEFORE 31.3.2004 FOR CONSTRUCTION O F 1008 SQ. MT. OF THE BUILDING. THIS WAS WORKED OUT TO RS. 47, 74,896 X 0.7= RS. 33,42,272. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY SHO WN STOCK OF RAW MATERIAL AS ON 31.3.2004 OF RS. 3,25,199/-, THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 30,17,073/- (RS. 33,42,272 RS. 3,25 ,199) SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS FOR A.Y. 2004-05. THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE. 3.1. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL. BE FORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT ASSESSING OFFICERS ESTIMATE THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE INCURRED PARTICULAR AMOUNT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUIL DING AS ON 31-3-2004 WAS A SURMISE, IN CONSTRUCTION LINE MATERIAL IS SUPPLIE D ON CREDIT ALSO WHICH IS PAID IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. IN FACT THIS EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CHA LLENGED. THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE NOIDA AUTHORITY ONLY. IT HAS BEEN ASSUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HA VE COMPLETED ALL TYPE OF WORKS ON THE BASIS OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WHERE AS THE CERTIFICATE IS GIVEN ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN PARAMETERS ABOUT ELECTRICAL FITTINGS, WATER SUPPLY ETC. MUCH OF THE FINISHING WORK WAS CARRIED OUT AFTER C OMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS GIVEN BY THE NOIDA AUTHORITY IN 2005. THUS, ADDITIO N IS BASED ON THE THEORITCAL ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE COMPLETION CERTIFI CATE. CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCE, GAVE PARTIAL RELIEF BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4 I FIND SOME FORCE IN THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT COM PANY THAT THESE BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLIERS DELIVER THE GOODS ; GET PARCHIS SIGNED AND LATER SHOW THESE PARCHIS, WHICH ARE PROV IDED TO THE APPELLANT AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT IS DEMANDED BY THE SE PETTY/ SMALL BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLIERS. SUCH CONTENTION IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE MARKET PRICE IN CONSTRUCTION BU SINESS. THAT THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OF BUILDING HAS BEE N ISSUED BY THE NOIDA AUTHORITY IN THE MONTH OF JUNE, 2004 AND THE INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED BY THE OFFICIALS OF THE NO IDA AUTHORITY ON 15-04-2004 AND THE PROBABILITY CANNOT BE RULED OUT THAT THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WERE CONTINUIN G UNTIL THE DATE OF INSPECTION, THOUGH THE APPLICATION FOR COMP LETION WAS MADE ON 06-04-2004. THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS PREPARED AND SUBMITT ED A STATEMENT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF MATERIAL RECEIVED AND BY WHICH IT WAS SHOWN THAT A SUM OF RS. 14,16,939/- WAS INCU RRED BY THE COMPANY UNTIL 15 TH APRIL, 2004, THE DATE ON WHICH INSPECTION TOOK PLACE BY NOIDA AUTHORITY. HOWEVER, SUCH ANALYSIS IS NOT RELIABLE SIMPLY BECAU SE APPELLANTS BOOKS HAVE ALREADY BEEN REJECTED. THE AO'S ESTIMATE THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY INCURR ED RS. 30,17,073/- UNTIL MARCH 31,2004 IS ALSO BASED ON SO ME PRESUMPTION AND ASSUMPTIONS. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES, AS S TATED ABOVE, THAT MAY INCLUDE (A) ABSENCE OF ANY ADVERSE POSITIVE EVIDENCE POINTI NG OUT ANY CERTAIN BASIS OF KNOWING AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT AND; (B) ALSO THE TIME AVAILABLE OF 48 DAYS ONLY TO CONS TRUCTION 1008 SQ. METER OF BUILDING, AND NOT TOTALLY DISREGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF CREDIT FACILITY AVAILED BY THE APPEL LANT COMPANY FROM THE PETTY SUPPLIERS AS PER THE PREVAIL ING NORMS IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY; I AGREE THAT THE ESTIMATION OF INVESTMENT OUT-OF-BO OKS NEEDS MODIFICATION, AS BELOW: NOW, AS PER A.OS OWN CALCULATION, IN ASSESSMENT O RDER FOR A.Y. 2005-06, TOTAL COST OF 1008 SQ. MTR., IS ESTIM ATED AT RS. 5 47,74,896/-. THE AO THEN SAID THAT TILL 31-03-2004, 70& OF THIS, I.E. RS. 33,42,272/- MUST HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY 31- 03-2004. IN VIEW OF VARIOUS PARATMETER/ PRESUMPTION, I MODIF Y THIS ESTIMATE AND CALCULATE THAT 55% OF RS. 47,74,896/- I.E. RS. 26,26,193/- COULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED UPTO 31-03-200 4. HOWEVER, IT WOULD BE HARSH TO PROCEED WITH ASSUMPTI ON THAT ALL THIS EXPENDITURE WAS PAID IN CASH UPTO 31-03-2004 O NLY, AND NOTHING WAS TAKEN ON CREDIT/TRUST TO BE BILLED AND PAID LATER AFTER 31-03-2004. ALTHOUGH APPELLANTS BOOKS AND TABLES HAVE BEEN REJ ECTED; BUT THE RATIO OF SUCH ANALYSIS, THAT IN MANY CASES OF S UPPLY OF BUILDING MATERIAL; PAYMENTS WERE MADE SUBSEQUENT TO RECEIPT OF MATERIAL, IS RELEVANT. CONSEQUENTLY, IN MY VIEW, IT WOULD MEET BOTH THE EN DS OF JUSTICE IF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 18,50,000/- IS ESTIMATE D TO BE INCURRED UP TO 31-03-2004 OF WHICH RS. 3,25,199/- W AS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS BOOKS UP TO 31-03-2004, AND , DEDUCTING THAT, I ESTIMATE AN AMOUNT OF RS. 15,24,801/- (18,5 0,000/- - 3,25,199/-) AS TO BE SPENT IN CASH, NATURALLY OUT O F UNACCOUNTED FUNDS. TO THAT EXTENT, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF O UT-OF-BOOKS INVESTMENT I.E. SOURCE OF WHICH REMAINS UNEXPLAINED , WOULD BE RS. 15,24,801/-. THUS, ADDITION OF RS. 30,17,073/- IS RESTRICTED TO RS. 15,24,800/-. 3.2. ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A), HO WEVER, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL IN RESPECT OF PARTIAL RELIEF GIVEN BY CIT( A). 4. LD. DR CONTENDS THAT: (1) THE ISSUE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE BY NOIDA AU THORITY IS NOT DISPUTED BY ASSESSEE. THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED BY THE AUTHORITY AFTER ASCERTAINING THE COMPLETION OF THE BUILDING. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY MADE AN ESTIMATE BASED O N THE DATE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE. (2) CIT(A) HAS GIVEN PART RELIEF ON THE BASIS THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ALL THE EXPENDITURE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PAID I N CASH. IT IS PLEADED BY THE LD. D.R. THAT IF THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO CLAI M THAT SOME OF THE 6 MATERIAL WAS PURCHASED ON CREDIT, THEN THE BURDEN T O PROVE SUCH EVIDENCE LAY ON THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ON THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER . (3) CIT(A)S ESTIMATE IS ARBITRARY AND DOES NOT GIV E REASONABLE BASIS FOR THE PART RELIEF, WHEREAS ASSESSING OFFICER S ESTIM ATE IS BASED ON PROPER WORKING. ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS RELI ED ON. 5. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER H AND CONTENDS THAT: (1) IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT IN BUILDING CONSTRU CTION THE BUILDING MATERIAL IS PROVIDED ON CREDIT BY THE SUPPLIER. THE PAYMENTS ARE SUBSEQUENTLY MADE. (2) CIT(A) HAS PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE WORK MAY BE COMPLETED BY ASSESSEE AFTER GIVING THE COMPL ETION CERTIFICATE. SOME OF THE EXPENDITURE MAY HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON CREDIT BASIS. WHEN AN ESTIMATE IS MADE, ALL THESE FACTS ARE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND IT CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED MERELY BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE ORDER OF R EJECTING THE BOOKS OF A/CS. (3) ASSESSING OFFICER S ESTIMATE IS THEORETICAL AN D ADOPTS ONLY NOIDA AUTHORITY COMPLETION CERTIFICATE, WHICH DOES NOT SA Y THAT ENTIRE BUILDING MATERIAL WAS PAID IN THIS YEAR ONLY. SIMIL ARLY, IT DOES NOT GIVE DETAILS OF OTHER FINISHED WORKS. ORDER OF CIT (A) IS RELIED ON. 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN PAR T RELIEF BY CHANGING THE ESTIMATE BY GIVING PROPER FINDINGS THAT THERE ARE V ARIOUS REASONS TO REDUCE THE ESTIMATE AS DONE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE B ASIS OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE: (1) SOME OF THE SUPER FINISHING WORK MAY BE COMPLE TED BY ASSESSEE AFTER GIVING THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE BY THE NOIDA AUTH ORITY. 7 (2) THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE PURCHASED BUILDING MATER IAL ON SOME MARGIN WHICH CAN BE REASONABLY FOR FIFTEEN DAYS. (3) CIT(A) HAS NOT HELD THAT THE ESTIMATE OF EXPEN DITURE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS INCORRECT. THE RELIEF HAS BEE N GIVEN ON THE REASON THAT SOME OF THE WORK MAY BE COMPLETED AFTER THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE AND THAT SOME MATERIAL WAS PURCHASED O N CREDIT BY ASSESSEE AND PAID IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THESE REASONS CANNOT BE CALLED UNREASONABLE, CAPRICIOUS OR ARBITRARY. CIT(A), AS AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY, HAS APPRECIATED THESE RELEVANT FACTUAL A SPECTS. (4) IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT CIT(A) HAS GIVEN NO REASON AT ALL, WHILE REDUCING ASSESSING OFFICER S ESTIMATE. IN OUR VIEW, THE REASONS RECORDED BY CIT(A) ARE JUST AND PROPER AND REASONABLY POSSIBLE IN ASSESSEES LINE OF CONSTRUCTION BUSINES S. 6.1. IN VIEW OF ALL THESE FACTS WE SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A), AS ESTIMATE OF ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN REFRAMED BY CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF PROPER REASONS. WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A). REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ASSESSEES APPEAL (ITA NO. 812/DEL/10 A.Y. 2005-0 6) : 7. IN ITS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SO MANY GR OUND. HOWEVER, EFFECTIVE GROUNDS ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT BY CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LE ARNED AO WHO ERRONEOUSLY ASSESSED THE APPELLANT U/S 144 WITH ESTIMATED PROFIT OF RS. 4,50,000/- ON ESTIMATE ON R EJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) AS AGAINST RS. 94,7 90/- OFFERED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS OUT OF TRANSACT ION OF SALE OF PROPERTY BEARING NO. C-32, SECTOR 63, NOIDA , HOLDING THE AID TRANSACTION TO BE AN ADVENTURE IN T HE NATURE OF TRADE. 8 2. LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND NOS. D,E & F OF GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BEFORE HIM. 8. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS U/S 144 THOUGH RELEVANT MATERIAL WAS FILE D BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. BEFORE CIT(A) ALSO THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED ALL THE GROUNDS AND FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM PARA 4 OF CIT(A)S ORDER. CIT(A) HAS REPRODUCED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICE R ALONG WITH FINDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THEREAFTER, CONSIDERIN G THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER AND ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS ON TREAT MENT OF SALE OF PROPERTY HELD AS INVESTMENT BY THE COMPANY HAS BEEN HELD TO BE BUSINESS INCOME. BESIDES, THE SALE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET HAS BE EN TAKEN AS THE BUSINESS SALES AND ON THE SAME 5% PROFIT ALSO HAS BEEN ESTIM ATED BY REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS. IT IS PLEADED THAT IN CASE OF SALE O F AN ASSET, THERE CANNOT BE ANY FURTHER PROFIT ON THE REGISTERED SALE VALUE. C IT(A) DID NOT CONSIDER THE GROUNDS RAISED BY IT BY WAY OF GROUND NOS. 1 (D),(E ) & (F). 9. LD. DR IS HEARD. 10. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUG H THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2004-05 HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF BY UPHOLDING THE CIT(A)S ORDER, GIVING PART RELIEF. THE FINDINGS HAVE SOME CONNECTION WITH ASSESSMENT ORDE R FOR 2005-06 INASMUCH AS ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE THE EXPENDITURE WAS PAID D URING THIS PERIOD. HOWEVER, A PART THEREOF HAS BEEN HELD TO BE INCURRE D IN A.Y. 2004-05 FOR WHICH ADDITION U/S 69B WAS MADE. CIT(A)S ORDER HA S BEEN CONFIRMED ON THIS ASPECT. 10.1. SINCE THE OUT COME OF THIS APPEAL WILL HAVE B EARING ON A.Y. 2005-06, IT WILL BE DESIRABLE TO CONSIDER THE SAME WHILE FIN ALIZING THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06. FURTHER, CIT(A) HAS RECORDED A FINDING TH AT ASSESSEES CA 9 APPEARED AND FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. ASSESSING O FFICERS ORDER HAS BEEN REPRODUCED AND THERE ARE NO SPEAKING FINDINGS OF FA CTS ON THE CONTENTION AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. FROM TH E RECORD IT ALSO EMERGES THAT CIT(A) DID NOT ADJUDICATE GROUND NO. 1(D),(E) & (F) WHICH REQUIRE ADJUDICATION. 10.2. IN THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE INCLINED TO SET ASIDE THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06 BACK TO TH E FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH CONSIDERING OUR ORDER FOR A. Y. 2004-05 AND CONSIDERING ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS PROPERLY. IF FOU ND NECESSARY, A REMAND REPORT FROM ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ALSO BE CALLED. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS ES. 11. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2004-0 5 IS DISMISSED AND ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06 IS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14-08-2012. SD/- SD/- ( K.D. RANJAN ) ( R.P. TOLANI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 14-08-2012. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 10