ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s Ucal Fuel Systems Ltd, CHENNAI

ITA 873/CHNY/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5413 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2007
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N MADHAVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 80HHC; 80IB

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . , !' # , $ % BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO. 353/MDS/2007 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) M/S. UCAL FUEL SYSTEMS LTD. UNIT 505, DELTA WING RAHEJA TOWERS, 177, ANNA SALAI,CHENNAI-2 VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-III(3), CHENNAI. PAN:AAACU0541K ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) & ./ I.T.A.NO. 873/MDS/2007 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-III(3), CHENNAI. VS. M/S. UCAL FUEL SYSTEMS LTD. UNIT 505, DELTA WING RAHEJA TOWERS, 177, ANNA SALAI,CHENNAI-2 PAN:AAACU0541K ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : MR. R.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : MR. N.MADHAVAN, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 & / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM: THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME ITA NO.353 & 873 /MDS/2007 2 TAX (APPEALS)-VIII, CHENNAI DATED 17.1.2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. ITA NO.353/MDS/2007 (ASSESSEES APPEAL): 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT DUTY EXEMPTION ENTITLEMENT CERTIFICATE (DEEC) UTILIZED BY THE APPELLANT FOR IMPORT OF GOODS WITHO UT PAYMENT OF DUTY IS AN INCENTIVE TO BE EXCLUDED WHILE COMPUT ING RELIEF ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SHRI VIJAYARAGHAVAN SUBMIT S THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT OBTAIN ANY PROFIT ON TRANSFER OF DEEC BUT ASSESSEE UTILIZED IN ITS OWN BUSINESS FOR IMPORT OF MATERIAL WITHOUT PAYMENT OF DUTY. THEREFORE NO PROFIT HAS A RISEN FROM TRANSFER OF DEEC AND NOTIONAL BENEFIT CANNOT BE DE DUCTED FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS OF THE BUSINESS. THE COUNS EL SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SOLD LICENSE, HENCE ACQUIRING ANY PROFIT ON LICENSE BEING TREATED AS INCENTIVE UNDER SECTION 28(III) DOES NOT ARISE AND SUBMITS THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUAR ELY COVERED ITA NO.353 & 873 /MDS/2007 3 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HO NBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS LTD. VS . CIT (342 ITR 49). 4. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE O RDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT REDUCED 90% OF DEEC LICENSE WHILE COMPUT ING ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REDUCING 90% OF DEEC L ICENSE WHILE COMPUTING RELIEF ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 80HH C. HOWEVER, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS IS SUE HAS TO BE DECIDED IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS VS. CIT (SUPRA).THEREFORE, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FIL E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN TH E LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF ITA NO.353 & 873 /MDS/2007 4 TOPMAN EXPORTS(SUPRA). THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY CA LL FOR DETAILS FROM THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ACCO RDINGLY. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT INCOME COMPUTED / RELIEF UNDER SECTION 80IA DEPRECIATION GRANTED IN RESPECT OF THE ASSETS OF TH E UNIT BUT SET OFF AGAINST THE OTHER PROFIT OF THE COMPANY IN EARLIER YEARS SHOULD BE NOTIONALLY CARRIED FORWARD . AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THIS ISSU E HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1487/MDS/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 VI DE ORDER DATED 21.4.2011 AND THIS VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS ALSO AFFIRMED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS LTD. VS. ACIT (231 CT R 368). 7. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 21.4.2011 AND THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT CITED ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ITA NO.353 & 873 /MDS/2007 5 ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS LTD. (SUP RA) OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 8. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS LTD. (SUPRA) HAD CLEARLY HELD THAT DEPRECIATION OF AN ELIGIBLE UNIT WHICH HAS SET OFF AGAINST OTHER INCOME OF YEARS PRIOR TO INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR, COULD NOT BE NOTIONALLY CARRIED FORWARD AND SET OFF AGAINST INCOME OF ELIGIBLE UNIT FOR THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR BEFORE WORKING OUT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS ABSOLUTELY JUSTIFIED IN GIVING A RULING IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE THAT NOTIONAL UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION COULD NOT BE CARRIED FORWARD TO SET OFF IN THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING OUT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE. 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF TH E CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND THE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE. 9. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ALLOCATION OF COMMON EXPENSES SUCH AS RE NT, ITA NO.353 & 873 /MDS/2007 6 ELECTRICITY ETC. OF HEAD OFFICE WHILE COMPUTING RE LIEF UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT FOR THE PONDICHERRY UNIT. AT THE TIME OF HEARING COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY CONCEDES T HAT THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEE S CROSS OBJECTION FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN C.O.NO.128/M DS/2010 DATED 21.4.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. FO LLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBU NAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. 10. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING EXCLUSION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80H HC WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. 11. THE COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE IN APPEAL I S DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN CASE FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IN ITA NO.1519/MDS/2011 BY ORDER DATE D 30.11.2011 AND THIS VIEW WAS ALSO AFFIRMED BY THE ITA NO.353 & 873 /MDS/2007 7 JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M RF LTD. IN TC(A) NO.1020 OF 2009. 12. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL CITED ABOVE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. MRF LTD. IN TC(A) NO.1020 OF 2009 DATED 27.10.2 009 AND THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (322 ITR 42) . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE CO -ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. THE LAST ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF ` 1,80,146/- BEING LOSS ON DISCARDED ASSETS. ITA NO.353 & 873 /MDS/2007 8 14. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT LOSS ON DISCARDED ASSETS CLAIMED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS A LSO BEEN ADDED IN THE MEMO OF INCOME, THEREFORE, FURTHER DIS ALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUNTED TO DOUBLE DEDUCTION. 15. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT M ATTER MAY BE SENT BACK TO ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICAT ION AND IN CASE IT HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDED BACK IN THE MEMO OF INCOME, APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO DELETE THE SAME. 16. WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE OF VERIFICATION OF COMPUTATIO N OF MEMO OF INCOME AND THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT LOSS ON DISCARDED ASSETS CLAIMED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT H AS ALSO BEEN ADDED BACK IN THE MEMO OF INCOME. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD THAT IF THE LOSS ON DISCARDE D ASSETS HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDED BACK IN THE MEMO OF INCOME, SUCH LOSS CANNOT BE DISALLOWED AGAIN. THEREFORE, WE DIRE CT THE ITA NO.353 & 873 /MDS/2007 9 ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY AND GRANT APPROPRIATE R ELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.873/MDS/2007 (REVENUES APPEAL) : 17. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REV ENUE IS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SALES TAX AND EXCISE DUTY WILL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION O F RELIEF UNDER SECTION 80HHC. 18. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E SUBMITS THAT THIS ISSUE IN APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED AGAIN ST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISI ON OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LAKSHM I MACHINE WORKS (290 ITR 667). 19. WE HAVE HEARD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND CONSIDERED THE RECORDS AND THE ABOVE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. WE NOTE THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED AGAINST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE B Y THE ITA NO.353 & 873 /MDS/2007 10 DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY THIS ISSUE IS DE CIDED AGAINST THE REVENUE. 20. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRE D IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE TOWARDS REPLACEMENT OF DEFECTIVE PARTS. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT DISALLOWED PROVISION CREATED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR REPLACEMENT OF DEFECTIV E PARTS I.E. O RINGS STATING THAT SALES RELATING TO ABOVE PARTS WERE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE EARLIER YEARS, THEREFORE CREAT ING PROVISION FOR EARLIER YEARS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON IS NOT PROPER. ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DEC ISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT EAR TH MOVERS LTD. VS. CIT (245 ITR 248). 21. BEFORE US, THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBM ITS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALLOWED T HIS ITA NO.353 & 873 /MDS/2007 11 CLAIM WITHOUT GIVING ANY SPECIFIC FINDING WHETHER T HERE WAS ANY SCIENTIFIC BASIS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO CLA IM THAT PROVISION WAS IN FACT ASCERTAINED LIABILITY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE FURTHER CONTENDS THAT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT EARTH MOVERS LTD. (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE UNLESS AND UNTIL THE RE IS A FINDING AS TO WHETHER PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSESSE E IS BASED ON A CORRECT SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO PROVE THAT LIABILITY IS AN ASCERTAINED LIABILITY AND THAT THE SAME MAY BE DISC HARGED IN FUTURE. 22. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSES SEE HELD MEETINGS WITH MARUTI UDYOG LTD. TO WHICH THE PARTS I.E. O RINGS WERE SUPPLIED AS THESE PARTS WERE FITTED INTO CARS SOLD BY MARUTI UDYOG LTD. IN THE MEETING HELD WITH THE M ARUTI UDYOG LTD. AUTHORITIES, IT WAS DECIDED THAT DEFECTI VE O RINGS HAVE TO BE REPLACED REFERRING TO LETTER DATED 31.3. 2003 ISSUED BY MARUTI UDYOG LTD. AND THE DETAILS OF MEETINGS H ELD WITH MARUTI UDYOG LTD. ARE PLACED AT PAGES 40 TO 46 OF T HE PAPER BOOK. THE COST OF REPLACEMENT OF SUCH PARTS HAVE TO BE FULLY ITA NO.353 & 873 /MDS/2007 12 BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH INCLUDES MATERIAL, LAB OUR, PACKING TRANSPORT, TAXES, OCTROI, DEALER SERVICE CH ARGES ETC. THE COUNSEL, REFERRING TO PAGE 47 OF THE PAPER BOO K FILED BEFORE US WHICH IS A SUMMARY OF ISCV O RING AND THR OTTLE BODY REPLACEMENT ESTIMATION, SUBMITS THAT IT WAS A REASONABLE BUSINESS ESTIMATE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT 40% OF PARTS COULD BE DEFECTIVE AND HAVE TO BE REP LACED. THE COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT ACCE PTED LIABILITY AND REPLACED THE DEFECTIVE O RINGS AS AND WHEN VEHICLES WERE SENT TO THE SERVICE CENTRES. THE COUN SEL SUBMITS THAT THE LIABILITY TO REPLACE O RINGS AND INCURRING ALL EXPENSES ARE ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR BUT ONLY EXACT QUANTIFICATION WAS N OT MADE AND THE ASSESSEE MADE A REASONABLE BUSINESS ESTIMA TE THAT 40% OF O RINGS NEED TO BE REPLACED. THE COUNSEL FU RTHER SUBMITS THAT IN FACT TOTAL REPLACEMENT COST FOR DEF ECTIVE O RINGS FOR MARUTI VEHICLES ACTUALLY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 INCLUDING PROVISION OF ` 2,66,62,467/- MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WAS ` 705.62 LAKHS. THE COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT ITA NO.353 & 873 /MDS/2007 13 ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED ONLY ` 439 LAKHS AS DEDUCTION FOR TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. 2004-05 AND 2005-06. IN SUPPO RT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE PROVISION MADE FOR DEFECTIVE PA RTS IS AN ASCERTAINED LIABILITY, THE COUNSEL PLACES RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F ROTORK CONTROLS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (314 ITR 62). H E ALSO PLACES RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT EARTH MOVERS LTD. (SUPRA). 23. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHO RITIES AND THE DECISION RELIED ON. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PROVISION OF ` 2.66 CRORES TOWARDS LIABILITY OF REPLACEMENT OF D EFECTIVE PARTS MANUFACTURED BY THEM AND FITTED INTO CARS. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT LIABILITY HAS NOT BEEN CRYSTALLIZED IN THE CURRENT YEAR AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED PROVISI ON AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT EARTH MOVERS LTD. (SUPRA). NEITHER T HE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) ITA NO.353 & 873 /MDS/2007 14 HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL WITH REFERENCE TO THE CORRESPONDENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH MARUTI UDY OG LTD. AND THE REASONABLE BUSINESS ESTIMATE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR REPLACEMENT OF DEFECTIVE O RINGS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO ACCEPTED THE LIABILITY AND REPLACED O RINGS BY INCURRING EXPENSES MORE THAN THE PROVISION MADE BY IT. ALL TH ESE DETAILS HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. TH EREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE HAS TO BE EXAMIN ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DETAIL WITH REFERENCE TO THE CORRESPONDENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH MARUTI UDY OG LTD. AND THE REASONABLE BUSINESS ESTIMATE OF 40% MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON REPLACEME NT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AND ALSO KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ROTORK CONTROL S (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND IN THE CASE OF BHARAT EARTH MOVERS LTD. (SUPRA). THUS, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION. ITA NO.353 & 873 /MDS/2007 15 24. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE E AND REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THURSDAY, TH E 27 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 27 TH FEBRUARY, 2014. SOMU COPY TO: (1) M/S. UCAL FUEL SYSTEMS L TD. M/S.SUBBARAYA AIYAR PADMANABHAN & RAMAMANI ADVOCATES, 5A, DR.RADHAKRISHNAN SALAI, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI-600 004. (2) ASSESSING OFFICER (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F.