Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad V. Seec Technologies Asia Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 850/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 85022514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMAKRISHNA BANDI
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 115JB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.850/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 DY. CIT, CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD. VS. SEEC TECHNOLOGIES ASIA P. LTD., HYDERABAD 019. PAN AADCS4181L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : MR. RAMAKRISHNA BANDI FOR ASSESSEE : MR. A.V. RAGHURAM DATE OF HEARING : 1 2 .0 8 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 .0 8 .2015 ORDER PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-IV, HYDERABAD D ATED 25.03.2013 FOR THE A.Y. 2009-2010. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A ) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF RS.1,77,30,083 MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF DECRE ASE IN THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK OF SOFTWARE PRODUCT SEEC MOSAIC STUDIO. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY. IT HAS TWO SEPARATE UNITS OF BUSINESS ONE 2 ITA.NO.850/HYD/2013 SEEC TECHNOLOGIES ASIA P. LTD., HYDERABAD. FOR EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT (EOU) AND ANOTHER FOR DOMESTIC TARIFF AREA UNIT (I.E., DTA UNIT). INCOME IN RESPECT OF SOFTWARE EXPORTS MADE TO INTELLECT SEEC INC. IS ACCOUNTED IN THE EOU UNIT, WHILE THE INCOME IN RESP ECT OF MARKETING AND SUPPORT SERVICES PROVIDED TO ITS PARE NT COMPANY IN USA AND OTHER SERVICES PROVIDED TO CUSTO MERS IN INDIA IS ACCOUNTED IN THE DTA UNIT. 2.1. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR T HE RELEVANT A.Y. 2009-2010 ON 19.09.2009 ADMITTING TOT AL INCOME OF RS.1,28,31,520 COMPRISING OF LONG TERM CA PITAL GAINS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,77,30,083 TO THE P & L ACCOUNT OF DOMESTIC TAR IFF AREA (DTA) UNIT TOWARDS DECREASE IN STOCK. THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THIS ENTRY WERE CALLED FOR AND VERIFI ED BY THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE DECREASE IN ST OCK IS ON ACCOUNT OF THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT WRITTEN OFF I.E. , SEEC MOSAIC STUDIO WHICH IS A PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE PROD UCT OF INTELLECT SEEC INC., USA, IMPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR RE-SALE IN INDIA. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD IMPORTED 125 MILLION LINES OF CODE (MLOC) OF THE SOFTWARE AT A COST OF RS.4,62,54,00 0 DURING THE F.Y. 2004-05 OUT OF WHICH, ONLY 77.09 ML OC OF THE PRODUCT COULD BE SOLD BY THE COMPANY AND AS NO CUSTOMERS COULD BE FOUND DURING THE NEXT THREE YEAR S FOR THE BALANCE OF THE PRODUCT, THE PRODUCT HAS BECOME OBSOLETE AND THEREFORE, THE REMAINING 47.91 MLOC OF THE 3 ITA.NO.850/HYD/2013 SEEC TECHNOLOGIES ASIA P. LTD., HYDERABAD. SOFTWARE COST OF RS.1,77,30,083 WAS WRITTEN OFF DUR ING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF IMPORT OF THE SOFTWARE AND THE SALES MADE IN INDIA WERE SUBMITTED FOR VERIFICATION BEFORE THE A.O. 3. THE A.O., AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AT LENGTH, OBSERVED THAT THE SOFTWARE PURCHASED IS PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE OF SEEC INN, USA, WHICH IS THE PARENT COMPANY OF THE ASSESSEE, AND FU RTHER THAT SEEC INC., USA HAS ACCUMULATED LOSSES DURING T HE YEAR OF WRITE OFF. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASS ESSEE COULD HAVE ALWAYS IMPORTED SOFTWARE AGAINST THE PURCHASE ORDERS IN INDIA, SINCE THE SOFTWARE IS DEL IVERED THROUGH E-MAIL AND HENCE DOES NOT TAKE TIME FOR DEL IVERY. HE OBSERVED THAT THE DECISION TO BOOK LOSSES IN THE DTA UNIT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, INSTEAD OF RETURNING THE UN-SOLD SOFTWARE TO THE PARENT COMPANY, APPEARS TO BE A COLOURABLE TRANSACTION SINCE THE DTA UNIT OF THE CO MPANY HAS CAPITAL GAINS INCOME OF MORE THAN RS. 2 CRORES DURING THE YEAR AS AGAINST THE LOSSES REPORTED BY THE PARE NT COMPANY. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE SOFTWARE HAS AC TUALLY BECOME OBSOLETE. HE ALSO MADE A SEARCH IN THE INTER NET AND FOUND THAT THERE WAS DEMAND FOR SEEC MOSAIC STUDIO PRODUCT. HE, ACCORDINGLY, HELD THAT THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE IS A COLOURABLE DEVICE TO SET OFF THE CAPITAL GAIN INCOME THAT HAS ARISEN DURING THE YEAR. HE, TH US, DISALLOWED THE DEBIT OF RS.1,77,30,083 MADE TO THE P & L ACCOUNT OF THE DTA UNIT AND BROUGHT IT TO TAX. 4 ITA.NO.850/HYD/2013 SEEC TECHNOLOGIES ASIA P. LTD., HYDERABAD. 4. AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO ALLOWED THE SAME AND AGAINST THE RELIEF GIVEN BY TH E LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LEARNED D.R. EXTENSIVELY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SOFTWARE S TOCK IS NOT LIKE THE PHYSICAL STOCK REQUIRING PHYSICAL DELI VERY THAT INVOLVES TIME AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD HAV E IMPORTED THE SOFTWARE AS AND WHEN REQUIRED AND NOT AT ONCE AS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE A.Y. 2004-2005. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SEARCH ON THE INTERNET BY THE A. O. ITSELF PROVED THAT THERE WAS STILL DEMAND FOR THE S AID SOFTWARE PRODUCT AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE SOFTWARE HAS BECOME OBSOLETE . THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE WAS MADE ONLY TO SET OFF THE LOSSES AGAINST THE LONG TE RM CAPITAL GAINS INCOME AND IT IS A COLOURABLE DEVISE OF TAX EVASION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT D EALT WITH THIS ISSUE IN ITS PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND HAS ERRONEOUSLY GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE STOCK AT RS.4,62,54,000 AND BY SALE OF 77.09 MLOC AT RS.5,17,79,000, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY RECOVERED THE COST OF THE ENTIRE STOCK. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE STO CK COULD NOT BE RETURNED AS IT WAS PURCHASED AT A HIGH DISCO UNT OF 5 ITA.NO.850/HYD/2013 SEEC TECHNOLOGIES ASIA P. LTD., HYDERABAD. NEARLY 50% OF THE COST AND SINCE THE STOCK COULD NO T BE SOLD DURING THE LAST THREE YEARS, IT HAS BECOME OBS OLETE AND SO THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN A COMMERCIAL DECISION TO WRITE OFF THE SAME. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION TH AT WHERE THE STOCK IS NOT SALEABLE AND BECOMES OBSOLETE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, IT CAN BE WRITTEN OFF, HE PLACED RE LIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. HOTLINE TELETUBE AND COMPONENTS LTD., RE PORTED IN (2008) 12 DTR 311 (DEL.) (HC). 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IMPORTED THE SOFTWARE SEEC MOSAIC STUDIO FROM ITS PARENT COMPANY DURING THE F.Y. 2004-05 AND HAS ALSO MADE SALES OF PART OF SUCH STOCK I.E., 77.09 MLOC. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SELL ANY OF THE BALANCE IN THE NEXT THREE YEARS. TH E REQUEST FOR QUOTATION POINTED OUT BY THE A.O. AND REPRODUCED ON PAGE-3 OF HIS ORDER DEMONSTRATES THAT THE DEMAND WAS FOR SUPPORT AND UPGRADE OF SEEC MOSAIC STUDIO SOFTWARE AND NOT FOR THE SOFTWARE ITSELF. T HUS THE ASSESSEE HAD CLOSING STOCK OF THE SAID SOFTWARE AND THERE WAS NO DEMAND FOR THE SAME. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING OUT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD T O SHOW THAT THE SAID SOFTWARE HAS BECOME OBSOLETE, THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE I.E., THE ASSESSEE NOT BEIN G ABLE TO SELL THIS PRODUCT FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS SHOWS THAT THE SAID SOFTWARE WAS NOT IN DEMAND. AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A), SOFTWARE PRODUCTS BECOME OBSOLETE QUICK LY DUE 6 ITA.NO.850/HYD/2013 SEEC TECHNOLOGIES ASIA P. LTD., HYDERABAD. TO EXTREMELY SENSITIVE TECHNOLOGY CHANGES. THEREFOR E, A SOFTWARE PRODUCT BECOMING OBSOLETE IN A PERIOD OF T HREE YEARS IS POSSIBLE. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE HONBL E DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HOTLINE TELETUBE & COMPONENTS LTD., (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER : 3.2 DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO PROVISION IN RESPECT OF DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF STOCK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO SOUGHT THE ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE PROVISION BE NOT ADDED BACK WHILE COMPUTING THE PROFIT FROM BUSINESS UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE SAID ACT. 3.3. THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN THE PROVISION MADE IN RESPECT OF DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF STOCK BY SUBMITTING THAT A SUM OF RS.12,02,973/- DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF OBSOLETE AND OLD PICTURE TUBES. IT WAS THE ASSESSEE'S SAY THAT SINCE THE DEMAND FOR BLACK AND WHITE TELEVISION PICTURE TUBES HAD DIMINISHED THE INVENTORY WITH RESPECT TO THE SAME WHICH IT HAD BEEN CARRYING FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS HAD BECOME OBSOLETE AND HENCE, IT WAS UNABLE TO SELL THE SAME WHICH, PROMPTED THE ASSESSEE TO WRITE OFF THE SAME AS A LOSS. 3.4 THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY AN ORDER DATED 30.3.2005 REJECTED THE CONTENTION ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH A PROVISION CANNOT BE ALLOWED WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT SUCH A CLAIM CAN ONLY BE ALLOWED WHEN THE MATERIAL IS ACTUALLY SOLD. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE PROVISION FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF STOCK IN THE SUM OF RS.12,02,973/-. 3.5 BEING AGGRIEVED, THE MATTER WAS TAKEN UP IN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE COMMISSIONER OF 7 ITA.NO.850/HYD/2013 SEEC TECHNOLOGIES ASIA P. LTD., HYDERABAD. INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [IN SHORT CIT (APPEALS)]. THE CIT (APPEALS) VIDE ORDER DATED 16.8.2005 SUSTAINED THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT (APPEALS) HELD THAT THE PROVISION FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF STOCK COULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS THE LOSS IN RESPECT OF THE SAME WAS NOT A CRYSTALLIZED EXPENSE. 3.6 BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL WITH THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL BY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL SPECIFICALLY NOTED THE FACT THAT THE INVENTORY' IN ISSUE HAD NOT MOVED FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS. IT ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE'S STOCK HAD BECOME SCRAP AND INCAPABLE OF FURTHER USE. IT ALSO NOTED THE FACT THAT IN THE EVENT THE ASSESSEE WAS TO SELL THE STOCK AS SCRAP, THE BURDEN OF EXCISE WOULD BE HIGHER THAN THE VALUE IT WOULD REALIZE ON THE SALE OF THE 'OBSOLETE' STOCK AS SCRAP. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF OBSOLETE STOCK. 4. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT CLOSING STOCK IS VALUED AT COST OR MARKET PRICE, WHICHEVER IS LOWER. THIS PRINCIPLE IS NOTICED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. REPORTED IN (2007) 291 ITR 391. IN THE SAID DECISION, THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS :- 'THE ENTRY FOR STOCK WHICH APPEARS IN A TRADING ACCOUNT IS MERELY INTENDED TO CANCEL THE CHARGE FOR THE GOODS PURCHASED WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN SOLD WHICH SHOULD NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE COST OF THE GOODS. IT IS MORE OR LESS THAN THE COST, THEN THE EFFECT IS TO STATE THE PROFIT ON THE GOODS ACTUALLY SOLD. FROM THIS DOCTRINE THERE IS ONE EXCEPTION, NAMELY, THE ADOPTION OF MARKET VALUE AT THE DATE OF MAKING UP OF ACCOUNTS, IF THAT VALUE IS 8 ITA.NO.850/HYD/2013 SEEC TECHNOLOGIES ASIA P. LTD., HYDERABAD. LESS THAN THE COST. THIS IS IN ANTICIPATION OF THE LOSS THAT MAY BE MADE ON THE GOODS IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR. WHILE ANTICIPATED LOSS IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, ANTICIPATED PROFIT IN THE SHAPE OF APPRECIATED VALUE OF THE CLOSING STOCK IS NOT BROUGHT INTO THE ACCOUNT AS NO PRUDENT TRADE WOULD CARE TO SHOW INCREASED PROFITS BEFORE ACTUAL REALIZATION. THIS THEORY THAT THE CLOSING STOCK IS TO BE VALUED AT COST OR MARKET PRICE WHICHEVER IS THE LOWER, IS NOW GENERALLY ACCEPTED AS AN ESTABLISHED RULE OF COMMERCIAL PRACTICE AND ACCOUNTANCY. ' TO THE SAME EFFECT IS THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. BRITISH PAINTS INDIA LTD. (1991) 188 ITR 44 (SC). IN THE SAID JUDGMENT IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IT IS A WELL- RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLE OF COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTING TO ENTER IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT THE VALUE OF THE STOCK-IN-TRADE AT THE BEGINNING AND AT THE END OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR AT COST ON MARKET PRICE, WHICHEVER IS THE LOWER. WHERE THE MARKET VALUE HAS FALLEN BEFORE THE DATE OF VALUATION AND WHERE THE MARKET VALUE OF THE ARTICLE ON THAT DATE IS LESS THAN ITS ACTUAL COST, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO VALUE THE ARTICLES AT MARKET VALUE AND THUS ANTICIPATE THE LOSS WHICH HE MAY INCUR AT THE TIME OF THE SALE OF THE GOODS. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE CORRECT PRINCIPLE OF ACCOUNTING IS TO ENTER THE STOCK IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AT COST UNLESS THE VALUE IS REQUIRED TO BE REDUCED BY REASON OF THE FALL IN THE MARKET VALUE OF THE GOODS BELOW THE ORIGINAL COST. ORDINARILY, THEREFORE, THE GOODS SHOULD NOT BE WRITTEN DOWN BELOW THE COST PRICE EXCEPT WHERE THERE IS AN ACTUAL OR ANTICIPATED LOSS. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE 9 ITA.NO.850/HYD/2013 SEEC TECHNOLOGIES ASIA P. LTD., HYDERABAD. FALL IN THE PRICE IS ONLY SUCH AS IT WOULD REDUCE MERELY THE PROSPECTIVE PROFIT, THERE WOULD BE NO JUSTIFICATION TO DISCARD THE INITIAL VALUATION AT COST...... ' (UNDERLINING ADDED) 5. IN THE INSTANT CASE WE FIND THAT THE PRINCIPLE FOR VALUING STOCK AT COST OR REALIZABLE MARKET PRICE WHICHEVER IS LOWER IS APPLICABLE. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE STOCK BEING OBSOLETE DID NOT MOVE FOR OVER THREE YEARS AND ALSO THE FACT THAT IT COULD ONLY BE SOLD IF AT ALL AS SCRAP. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE ASSESSEE ALSO ESTABLISHED THAT IN THE EVENT IT IS SOLD AS SCRAP THE BURDEN OF EXCISE DUTY WOULD BE MUCH MORE THAN WHAT IT COULD REALIZE ON SALE OF THE SAID STOCK AS SCRAP. THE TRIBUNAL HAS RETURNED THIS AS A FINDING OF FACT. IN VIEW OF THESE FINDINGS, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT, ALL THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAS DONE BY MAKING THE PROVISION FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF STOCK IS TO ANTICIPATE THE LOSS IN THE VALUE OF STOCK. 6. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION. 8. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE U S, THE STOCK REMAINED UNSOLD FOR THREE YEARS AND THERE FORE, THE ABOVE DECISION IS APPLICABLE TO THE CASE BEFORE US. FURTHER, THE FACT THAT THE SOFTWARE HAS BEEN IMPORT ED IN THE F.Y. 2004-05 AND PART OF IT WAS ALSO SOLD DURIN G THE YEAR ITSELF SHOWS ITS SALEABILITY. THE CONTENTION O F THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING THE DECREASE IN THE V ALUE OF THE STOCK TO SET OFF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WHI CH HAS ARISEN IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO IS FARF ETCHED. FROM THE STATEMENT OF FACTS BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT I S ALSO 10 ITA.NO.850/HYD/2013 SEEC TECHNOLOGIES ASIA P. LTD., HYDERABAD. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN IMPORTING THE PRODUCT AT APPROXIMATELY HALF THE PRICE AT WHICH IT RE- SOLD. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE HAS WAITED FOR A REA SONABLE PERIOD TO SELL THE PRODUCT AND AFTER THREE YEARS WH EN IT COULD NOT SELL THE SAME ONLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKE N A COMMERCIAL DECISION TO WRITE OFF THE VALUE AT COST AND THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION, IT IS NOT A COLOURABLE DE VICE AS HELD BY THE A.O. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) AND GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26.0 8.2015. SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 26 TH AUGUST, 2015 VBP/- COPY TO : 1. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1), 7 TH FLOOR, B BLOCK, I.T. TOWERS, A.C. GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 2. SEEC TECHNOLOGIES ASIA P. LTD., THE CAPITAL, 203, MANIKONDA IT PARK, HYDERABAD 500 019. 3. CIT (A) - I V, HYDERABAD 4 . CIT - III , HYDERABAD. 5 . D.R. ITAT A BENCH, HYDERABAD. 6 . GUARD FILE